| Literature DB >> 29036927 |
Yu-Te Yeh1, An-Na Chiang2, Shu-Chen Hsieh3.
Abstract
Hyperglycemia and dysregulation of lipid metabolism play a crucial role in metabolic dysfunction. The aims of present study were to evaluate the ameliorative effect of the ethyl acetate fraction of Chinese olive fruit extract (CO-EtOAc) on high-fat diet (HFD) and streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetic rats. CO-EtOAc, rich in gallic acid and ellagic acid, could markedly decreased the body weight and epididymal adipose mass. In addition, CO-EtOAc increased serum HDL-C levels, hepatic GSH levels, and antioxidant enzyme activities; lowered blood glucose, serum levels of total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), bile acid, and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα); and reduced TC and TG in liver. We further demonstrated that CO-EtOAc mildly suppressed hepatic levels of phosphorylated IRS-1, TNF-α, and IL-6, but enhanced Akt phosphorylation. The possible mechanisms of cholesterol metabolism were assessed by determining the expression of genes involved in cholesterol transportation, biosynthesis, and degradation. It was found that CO-EtOAc not only inhibited mRNA levels of SREBP-2, HMG-CoAR, SR-B1, and CYP7A1 but also increased the expression of genes, such as ABCA1 and LDLR that governed cholesterol efflux and cholesterol uptake. Moreover, the protein expressions of ABCA1 and LDLR were also significantly increased in the liver of rats supplemented with CO-EtOAc. We suggest that Chinese olive fruit may ameliorate metabolic dysfunction in diabetic rats under HFD challenge.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese olive fruit; antioxidant activities; high-fat diet; hyperglycemia; metabolic dysfunction; proinflammatory cytokines
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29036927 PMCID: PMC5691739 DOI: 10.3390/nu9101123
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Primers used for Quantitative Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-qPCR).
| Genes | Sequence of Forward and Reverse Primers (5′ to 3′) | Annealing Temperature (°C) | Accession No. |
|---|---|---|---|
| SREBP-2 | FP: AGACTTGGTCATGGGGACAG | 60 °C | NM_001033694 |
| HMG-CoAR | FP: CCCAGCCTACAAACTGGAAA | 55 °C | NM_013134 |
| LDLR | FP: CAGCTCTGTGTGAACCTGGA | 55 °C | NM_175762 |
| SR-B1 | FP: TGCCCCAGGTTCTTCACTAC | 60 °C | NM_031541 |
| ABCA1 | FP: GTACCCAGCGTCCTTTGTGT | 58 °C | NM_178095 |
| ABCG1 | FP: CTGCAAGAGAGGGATGAAGG | 58 °C | NM_178095 |
| CYP7A1 | FP: CACCATTCCTGCAACCTTTT | 60 °C | NM_012942 |
| TNF-α | FP: AAATGGGCTCCCTCTCATCAG | 58 °C | NM_012675 |
| IL-6 | FP: TCTCTCCGCAAGAGACTTCCA | 60 °C | NM_012589.2 |
| GAPDH | FP: AGACAGCCGCATCTTCTTGT | 60 °C | NM_017008 |
SREBP-2, sterol regulatory element-binding protein 2; HMG-CoAR, hydroxyl-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase; LDLR, low density lipoprotein receptor; SR-B1, scavenger receptor class B type I; ABCA1, ATP-binding cassette transporter A1; ABCG1, ATP binding cassette transporter G1; CYP7A1, cholesterol 7α-hydroxylase1; TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor alpha; IL-6, Interleukin 6; GAPDH, glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase.
Figure 1High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) pattern of polyphenol standards and CO-EtOAc: (A) HPLC chromatogram of standard reference: gallic acid (GA, 17.31 min); (B) standard reference: ellagic acid (EA, 53.22 min); and (C) HPLC chromatogram of CO-EtOAc.
Body weight, food intake and biochemical characteristics in diabetic rats.
| Measurements | Control | DC | DC + CO-EtOAc | DC + CO-EtOAc |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body weight | ||||
| Wk-0 BW (g) | 153.42 ± 6.52 a | 151.87 ± 4.67 a | 159.01 ± 3.55 a | 154.33 ± 5.64 a |
| Wk-2 BW (g) | 271.13 ± 9.33 b | 308.72 ± 10.33 a | 309.69 ± 11.65 a | 297.45 ± 7.65 a |
| Wk-8 BW (g) | 414.43 ± 9.74 b | 448.62 ± 15.68 a | 440.11 ± 23.19 a | 411.55 ± 13.95 b |
| Body weight gain (g) | 143.30 ± 0.41 b | 139.90 ± 5.35 a | 130.42 ±11.54 a | 114.10 ± 6.30 c |
| Food intake (g/d) | 27.61 ± 2.05 a | 25.64 ± 3.72 a | 24.76 ± 4.63 a | 25.76 ± 3.68 a |
| EAT weight (g) | 4.51 ± 0.27 c | 7.54 ± 1.71 a | 5.92 ± 1.33 b | 5.02 ± 0.22 b |
| BG (mg/dL) | 102.75 ± 7.95 d | 309.3 ± 10.56 a | 174.42 ± 10.56 c | 252.55 ±12.10 b |
| Serum | ||||
| Insulin (ng/mL) | 1.25 ± 0.24 b | 0.60 ± 0.18 a | 0.55 ± 0.19 a | 0.53 ± 0.12 a |
| TC (mg/dL) | 50.43 ± 8.50 b | 71.04 ± 7.01 a | 49.53 ± 12.60 b | 42.88 ± 10.32 b |
| HDL-C (mg/dL) | 27.38 ± 0.91 b | 22.13 ± 1.16 b | 28.13 ± 0.81 a | 33.88 ± 2.61 a |
| BA (mg/dL) | 30.53 ± 4.93 c | 50.48 ± 6.55 a | 41.25 ± 5.85 b | 35.75 ± 7.22 b,c |
| TG (mg/dL) | 75.25 ± 7.51 c | 145.42 ± 18.61 b | 92.45 ± 10.14 a | 72.22 ± 9.22 a |
| TNF-α (pg/mL) | 4.52 ± 0.25 c | 7.83 ± 1.66 a | 5.27 ± 0.48 b | 4.84 ± 0.80 c |
| AST (IU/L) | 38.57 ± 4.41 b | 71.30 ± 16.42 a | 40.83 ± 9.46 b | 33.14 ± 7.41 b |
| ALT (IU/L) | 20.57 ± 7.88 b | 47.30 ± 12.30 a | 25.83 ± 6.46 b | 23.14 ± 4.35 b |
1 BW, body weight; BG, blood glucose; BA, bile acid; DC, diabetic control; CO-EtOAc, ethyl acetate fraction of Chinese olive; EAT, epididymal adipose tissue; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triacylglycerol; TNF-α, Tumor necrosis factor alpha; HDL-C, High-density lipoprotein; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT alanine aminotransferase. 2 Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM (n = 8–10). Values with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05) by using one-way ANOVA coupled with Duncan’s multiple range tests. 3 Details of the nutrient contents, feeding, and treatment period are given in the “Materials and Methods” section.
Antioxidant status and TBARS levels of the liver in diabetic rats.
| Measurements | Control | DC | DC + CO-EtOAc | DC + CO-EtOAc |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOD (U mg protein−1) | 83.33 ± 8.88 a | 59.37 ± 11.96 b | 65.37 ± 12.45 ab | 85.37 ± 10.23 a |
| GSH (μmol mg protein−1) | 32.55 ± 3.72 a | 17.72 ± 2.86 b | 28.64 ± 4.41 ab | 36.72 ± 4.86 a |
| GPx (nmol mg protein−1) | 101.51 ± 10.37 a | 60.5 ± 8.69 b | 76.5 ± 6.43 ab | 92.5 ± 4.69 a |
| CAT (U mg protein−1) | 59.32 ± 6.52 a | 21.5 ± 4.43 cd | 28.5 ± 2.43 c | 50.5 ± 4.38 b |
| TBARS (nmol mg protein−1) | 1.13 ± 0.71 c | 3.12 ± 0.73 a | 1.82 ± 0.35 b | 1.54 ± 0.27 b |
1 DC, diabetic control; CO-EtOAc, ethyl acetate fraction of Chinese olive; SOD, superoxidase dismutase; GSH, reduced glutathione; GPx, glutathione peroxidase; CAT, catalase; TBARS, 2-thiobarbituric acid reactive substances. 2 Data are expressed as the mean ± SEM (n = 8–10). Values with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05) by using one-way ANOVA coupled with Duncan’s multiple range tests.
Figure 2Effects of CO-EtOAc on the regulation of insulin receptor-mediated signaling. Relative protein levels of hepatic: (A) IRS-1 (phosphorylated IRS-1 at Ser-307 and total IRS-1); and (B) Akt (phosphorylated Akt at Ser-473 and total Akt) were detected by Western blot analysis. Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 8–10). Values with different letters are statistically different (p < 0.05) by analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Duncan’s multiple range tests. Relative expression values are expressed as folds of the control group, which is set as 1.
Figure 3Effects of OE-EtOAc on hepatic lipid accumulation. (A) The sections of rat liver tissues were stained by H&E with a representative photograph under 200× magnification; scale bar represents 30 μm. (B) The triglyceride content was analyzed using enzymatic assay. Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 8–10). Values with different letters indicate statistical difference (p < 0.05) by analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Duncan’s multiple range tests.
Figure 4Effects of OE-EtOAc on the levels of hepatic cholesterol and gene expression. (A) The content of hepatic cholesterol was analyzed using enzymatic assay. (B) Relative mRNA levels of hepatic SREBP-2, HMG-CoAR, LDLR, SR-B1, ABCA1, and CYP7A1 were analyzed using RT-qPCR. (C) Relative protein levels of hepatic LDLR and ABCA1 were detected by Western blot analysis. Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 8–10). Values with different letters show significant difference (p < 0.05) by analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Duncan’s multiple range tests. Quantitative values of mRNA and protein expression are expressed as folds of the control group, which is set as 1.
Figure 5Effects of OE-EtOAc on the expression of hepatic inflammatory cytokines. (A) Relative mRNA levels of hepatic IL-6 and TNF-α were determined using RT-qPCR. Relative protein levels of: hepatic IL-6 (B); and TNF-α (C) were examined by Western blot analysis. Data are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 8–10). Values with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05) by analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Duncan’s multiple range tests. Quantitative values of mRNA and protein expression are expressed as folds of the control group, which is set as 1.
Figure 6The potential mechanisms of CO-EtOAc protect metabolic dysfunction.