| Literature DB >> 29152255 |
Thao Duy Nguyen1, Olena Prykhodko1, Frida Fåk Hållenius1, Margareta Nyman1.
Abstract
Butyric acid has been shown to have suppressive effects on inflammation and diseases related to the intestinal tract. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether supplementation of two glycerol esters, monobutyrin (MB) and tributyrin (TB), would reach the hindgut of rats, thus having an effect on the caecal profile of SCFA, microbiota composition and some risk markers associated with chronic inflammation. For this purpose, rats were fed high-fat diets after adding MB (1 and 5 g/kg) and TB (5 g/kg) to a diet without any supplementation (high-fat control; HFC). A low-fat (LF) diet was also included. In the liver, total cholesterol concentrations, LDL-cholesterol concentrations, LDL:HDL ratio, and succinic acid concentrations were reduced in rats given the MB and TB (5 g/kg) diets, compared with the group fed the HFC diet. These effects were more pronounced in MB than TB groups as also expressed by down-regulation of the gene Cyp8b1. The composition of the caecal microbiota in rats fed MB and TB was separated from the group fed the HFC diet, and also the LF diet, as evidenced by the absence of the phylum TM7 and reduced abundance of the genera Dorea (similar to LF-fed rats) and rc4-4. Notably, the caecal abundance of Mucispirillum was markedly increased in the MB group compared with the HFC group. The results suggest that dietary supplementation of MB and TB can be used to counteract disturbances associated with a HFC diet, by altering the gut microbiota, and decreasing liver lipids and succinic acid concentrations.Entities:
Keywords: Bile acid-related genes; Gut microbiota; HFC, high-fat control; LBP, lipopolysaccharide-binding protein; LF, low-fat; LPS, lipopolysaccharide; Liver cholesterol; MB, monobutyrin; SCFA; Succinic acid; TB, tributyrin
Year: 2017 PMID: 29152255 PMCID: PMC5672331 DOI: 10.1017/jns.2017.54
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Nutr Sci ISSN: 2048-6790
Composition (g/kg dry weight) of the test diets
| Diet… | LF | HFC | 0·1 MB | MB | TB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Components | |||||
| Casein | 150·0 | 150·0 | 150·0 | 150·0 | 150·0 |
| 1·2 | 1·2 | 1·2 | 1·2 | 1·2 | |
| Butter | 0·0 | 180·0 | 180·0 | 180·0 | 180·0 |
| Rapeseed oil | 50·0 | 50·0 | 50·0 | 50·0 | 50·0 |
| Sucrose | 100·0 | 100·0 | 100·0 | 100·0 | 100·0 |
| Cellulose | 50·0 | 50·0 | 50·0 | 50·0 | 50·0 |
| Mineral mixture | 48·0 | 48·0 | 48·0 | 48·0 | 48·0 |
| Vitamin mixture | 8·0 | 8·0 | 8·0 | 8·0 | 8·0 |
| Choline chloride | 2·0 | 2·0 | 2·0 | 2·0 | 2·0 |
| Ester product | 0·0 | 0·0 | 1·0 | 5·0 | 5·0 |
| Wheat starch | 590·8 | 410·8 | 409·8 | 405·8 | 405·8 |
LF, low-fat; HFC, high-fat control; 0·1 MB, monobutyrin (1 g/kg diet); MB, monobutyrin (5 g/kg diet); TB, tributyrin (5 g/kg diet).
Sigma-Aldrich.
Arla Foods.
FMC BioPolymer.
Containing (g/kg): 0·37 CuSO4.5H2O, 1·4 ZnSO4.7H2O, 332·1 KH2PO4, 171·8 NaH2PO4.2H2O, 324·4 CaCO3, 0·068 KI, 57·2 MgSO4, 7·7 FeSO4.7H2O, 3·4 MnSO4.H2O, 0·02 CoCl.6H2O, 101·7 NaCl, 0·019 chromium (III) chloride and 0·011 sodium selenite (Lantmännen).
Containing (g/kg): 0·62 menadione, 2·5 thiamin hydrochloride, 2·5 riboflavin, 1·25 pyridoxine hydrochloride, 6·25 calcium pantothenate, 6·25 nicotinic acid, 0·25 folic acid, 12·5 inositol, 1·25 p-aminobenzoic acid, 0·05 biotin, 0·00375 cyanocobalamin, 0·187 retinyl palmitate, 0·00613 calciferol, 25 d-α-tocopheryl acetate, 941·25 maize starch (Lantmännen).
Cargill; varied depending on the ester and fat content of the test diets.
Final body weight, body weight gain, total feed intake, feed efficiency ratio (body weight gain/feed intake), wet and freeze-dried liver weight, spleen weight, caecal tissue, caecal content and caecal pH in rats fed a low-fat (LF) diet, a high-fat control (HFC) diet or the HFC diet supplemented with monobutyrin at 1 g/kg diet (0·1 MB), MB at 5 g/kg diet (MB) or tributyrin at 5 g/kg diet (TB) for 21 d
(Mean values with their standard errors; n 7)
| Group… | LF | HFC | 0·1 MB | MB | TB | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |||||
| Final body weight (g) | 292 | 8 | 270 | 4 | 275 | 7 | 252*††† | 7 | 256†† | 4 |
| Body weight gain (g) | 137 | 6 | 120 | 4 | 129 | 7 | 113† | 6 | 116† | 4 |
| Total feed intake (g/rat) | 453 | 2 | 417 | 2 | 389 | 10 | 347 | 9 | 355 | 2 |
| Feed efficiency ratio (g/g feed) | 0·30 | 0·01 | 0·29 | 0·01 | 0·33 | 0·02 | 0·33 | 0·02 | 0·33 | 0·01 |
| Wet liver weight (g) | 11 | 0·4 | 10 | 0·4 | 10 | 0·3 | 9† | 0·3 | 10† | 0·2 |
| Freeze-dried liver weight (g) | 3·3 | 0·2 | 3·1 | 0·1 | 3·1 | 0·1 | 2·8† | 0·1 | 2·9 | 0·1 |
| Spleen weight (g) | 0·6 | 0·03 | 0·6 | 0·03 | 0·6 | 0·02 | 0·5 | 0·03 | 0·6 | 0·03 |
| Caecal tissue weight (g) | 0·5 | 0·02 | 0·5 | 0·02 | 0·5 | 0·03 | 0·6 | 0·08 | 0·5 | 0·02 |
| Caecal content weight (g) | 1·7 | 0·2 | 2·2 | 0·3 | 2·1 | 0·3 | 1·9 | 0·2 | 1·7 | 0·2 |
| Caecal pH | 7·4 | 0·1 | 7·5 | 0·1 | 7·5 | 0·1 | 7·7 | 0·3 | 7·6 | 0·3 |
* Mean value was significantly different from that of the HFC group (P < 0·05; one-way ANOVA and Dunnett's test).
Mean value was significantly different from that of the LF group: † P < 0·05, †† P < 0·01, ††† P < 0·001 (one-way ANOVA and Dunnett's test).
SCFA in the caecum, portal serum, and liver of rats fed a low-fat (LF) diet, a high-fat control (HFC) diet or the HFC diet supplemented with monobutyrin at 1 g/kg diet (0·1 MB), MB at 5 g/kg diet (MB) or tributyrin at 5 g/kg diet (TB) for 21 d
(Mean values with their standard errors; n 7)
| Group… | LF | HFC | 0·1 MB | MB | TB | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Locations | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |||||
| Caecal pool (μmol) | ||||||||||
| Total | 100 | 11 | 82 | 10 | 85 | 5 | 65† | 6 | 56*†† | 7 |
| Acetic | 71 | 8 | 57 | 7 | 60 | 4 | 48† | 5 | 41†† | 5 |
| Propionic | 16 | 2 | 11† | 1 | 12 | 1 | 8*†††† | 1 | 6***†††† | 1 |
| Butyric | 9 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 6 | 1 |
| Valeric | 1·6 | 0·2 | 1·5 | 0·2 | 1·6 | 0·1 | 1·2 | 0·1 | 1·0*† | 0·1 |
| Isobutyric | 1·6 | 0·2 | 1·2 | 0·3 | 1·2 | 0·1 | 0·7†† | 0·1 | 0·8† | 0·2 |
| Isovaleric | 1·32 | 0·2 | 1·35 | 0·2 | 1·22 | 0·1 | 0·81* | 0·1 | 0·88 | 0·1 |
| Portal serum concentration (μmol/l) | ||||||||||
| Total | 743 | 32 | 753 | 80 | 822 | 63 | 693 | 46 | 632 | 46 |
| Acetic | 628 | 35 | 635 | 64 | 712 | 54 | 575 | 30 | 540 | 41 |
| Propionic | 47 | 2 | 45 | 6 | 42 | 4 | 28*†† | 4 | 21**††† | 1 |
| Butyric | 32 | 2 | 38 | 6 | 36 | 6 | 58 | 13 | 47 | 5 |
| Valeric | 9 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 17 | 2 | 14 | 2 |
| Isobutyric | 14 | 1 | 13 | 1 | 11 | 1 | 8*† | 1 | 8*† | 1 |
| Isovaleric | 15 | 3 | 11 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 7 | 1 |
| Liver (μmol) | ||||||||||
| Total | 304**** | 33 | 147†††† | 25 | 144†††† | 12 | 127†††† | 8 | 186†† | 16 |
| Acetic | 288**** | 31 | 136†††† | 24 | 136†††† | 11 | 113†††† | 8 | 171††† | 15 |
| Propionic | 4·7 | 0·4 | 3·7 | 0·5 | 3·2† | 0·4 | 3·1† | 0·2 | 4·3 | 0·2 |
| Butyric | 2·8* | 0·3 | 2·1† | 0·1 | 1·6††† | 0·3 | 2·0† | 0·1 | 2·1 | 0·1 |
| Valeric | 1·1 | 0·2 | 0·5 | 0·1 | 0·5 | 0·1 | 0·6 | 0·1 | 0·6 | 0·1 |
| Isovaleric | 9·1 | 3·1 | 4·9 | 1·5 | 3·3 | 0·8 | 8·0 | 1·0 | 7·1 | 1·0 |
Mean value was significantly different from that of the HFC group: * P < 0·05, ** P < 0·01, *** P < 0·001, **** P < 0·0001 (one-way ANOVA and Dunnett's test).
Mean value was significantly different from that of the LF group: † P < 0·05, †† P < 0·01, ††† P < 0·001, †††† P < 0·0001 (one-way ANOVA and Dunnett's test).
Fig. 1.Liver succinic acid and lipid concentrations of rats fed a low-fat (LF) diet, a high-fat control (HFC) diet or the HFC diet supplemented with monobutyrin at 1 g/kg diet (0·1 MB), MB at 5 g/kg diet (MB) or tributyrin at 5 g/kg diet (TB) for 21 d (n 7/group). (a) Relative succinic acid (total amount of succinic acid in the liver/final body weight, μmol/g); (b) succinic acid concentration (μmol/g); (c) total cholesterol (mg/g); (d) LDL-cholesterol (mg/g); (e) HDL-cholesterol (mg/g); (f) LDL-cholesterol:HDL-cholesterol ratio; (g) TAG (mg/g). Values are means, with standard errors represented by vertical bars. Mean value was significantly different from that of the HFC group: * P < 0·05, ** P < 0·01, *** P < 0·001, **** P < 0·0001 (one-way ANOVA and Dunnett's test).
Fig. 2.Pearson's correlation of propionic acid in the caecum and portal serum of rats fed a low-fat diet, a high-fat control (HFC) diet or the HFC diet supplemented with monobutyrin at 1 g/kg diet, monobutyrin at 5 g/kg diet or tributyrin at 5 g/kg diet for 21 d (r 0·664; P < 0·001).
Fig. 3.Serum lipid and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP) concentrations of rats fed a low-fat (LF) diet, a high-fat control (HFC) diet or the HFC diet supplemented with monobutyrin at 1 g/kg diet (0·1 MB), MB at 5 g/kg diet (MB) or tributyrin at 5 g/kg diet (TB) for 21 d (n 7/group). (a) Total cholesterol (mmol/l); (b) TAG (mmol/l); (c) LBP (ng/ml). Values are means, with standard errors represented by vertical bars.
Relative mRNA expression of Nr0b2, Cyp7a1 and Cyp8b1 in the liver of rats fed a low-fat (LF) diet, a high-fat control (HFC) diet or the HFC diet supplemented with monobutyrin at 1 g/kg diet (0·1 MB), MB at 5 g/kg diet (MB) or tributyrin at 5 g/kg diet (TB) for 21 d
(Mean values with their standard errors; n 7, except n 6 for HFC)
| Group… | LF | HFC | 0·1 MB | MB | TB | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genes | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |||||
| 2·90 | 0·04 | 2·83 | 0·04 | 2·85 | 0·02 | 2·76 | 0·06 | 2·76 | 0·05 | |
| 3·09 | 0·07 | 2·92 | 0·07 | 2·84 | 0·08 | 2·66†† | 0·09 | 2·68†† | 0·07 | |
| 2·54 | 0·04 | 2·52 | 0·04 | 2·51 | 0·02 | 2·37*† | 0·06 | 2·42 | 0·03 | |
* Mean value was significantly different from that of the HFC group (P < 0·05; one-way ANOVA and Dunnett's test).
Mean value was significantly different from that of the LF group: † P < 0·05, †† P < 0·01 (one-way ANOVA and Dunnett's test).
Fig. 4.Relative abundance of caecal microbial taxa in rats fed a low-fat (LF) diet, a high-fat control (HFC) diet or the HFC diet supplemented with monobutyrin at 1 g/kg diet (0·1 MB), MB at 5 g/kg diet (MB) or tributyrin at 5 g/kg diet (TB) for 21 d (n 5–7/group). (a) TM7 phylum; (b) unclassified genus, family F16; (c) Bacteroides genus; (d) unclassified genus, family S24-7; (e) Mucispirillum genus; (f) Dorea genus; (g) rc4-4 genus. Values are means, with standard errors represented by vertical bars. Mean value was significantly different from that of the HFC group: * P < 0·05, ** P < 0·01 (one-way ANOVA and Dunnett's test or Kruskall–Wallis test).
Fig. 5.(a) Score scatter plot representing how each group is separated and related to other groups: LF, low-fat diet; HFC, high-fat control diet; 0·1 MB, HFC diet supplemented with monobutyrin at 1 g/kg diet; MB, HFC diet supplemented with monobutyrin at 5 g/kg diet; TB, HFC diet supplemented with tributyrin at 5 g/kg diet. PLS-DA, partial least-squares-projection-to-latent-structures-discriminant analysis. Each circle stands for one rat. (b) Loading scatter plot displays the caecal microbiota composition at the genus level and some liver lipid biomarkers in rats fed the LF diet, the HFC diet or the HFC diet supplemented with 0·1 MB, MB or TB for 21 d (n 5–7/group). Variables are marked as four-point stars and groups are showed as circles. CHOL, cholesterol; SUC, succinic acid; X, microbiota genera; Y, liver biomarkers.