| Literature DB >> 29757947 |
Muhammad Imran1, Odile Sergent2, Arnaud Tête3, Isabelle Gallais4, Martine Chevanne5, Dominique Lagadic-Gossmann6, Normand Podechard7.
Abstract
The rise in prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) constitutes an important public health concern worldwide. Including obesity, numerous risk factors of NAFLD such as benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) and ethanol have been identified as modifying the physicochemical properties of the plasma membrane in vitro thus causing membrane remodeling-changes in membrane fluidity and lipid-raft characteristics. In this study, the possible involvement of membrane remodeling in the in vivo progression of steatosis to a steatohepatitis-like state upon co-exposure to B[a]P and ethanol was tested in obese zebrafish larvae. Larvae bearing steatosis as the result of a high-fat diet were exposed to ethanol and/or B[a]P for seven days at low concentrations coherent with human exposure in order to elicit hepatotoxicity. In this condition, the toxicant co-exposure raised global membrane order with higher lipid-raft clustering in the plasma membrane of liver cells, as evaluated by staining with the fluoroprobe di-4-ANEPPDHQ. Involvement of this membrane's remodeling was finally explored by using the lipid-raft disruptor pravastatin that counteracted the effects of toxicant co-exposure both on membrane remodeling and toxicity. Overall, it can be concluded that B[a]P/ethanol co-exposure can induce in vivo hepatotoxicity via membrane remodeling which could be considered as a good target mechanism for developing combination therapy to deal with steatohepatitis.Entities:
Keywords: benzo[a]pyrene; co-exposure; ethanol; high-fat diet; lipid raft; liver steatosis; membrane remodeling; pravastatin; steatohepatitis; zebrafish larva
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29757947 PMCID: PMC6023014 DOI: 10.3390/biom8020026
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomolecules ISSN: 2218-273X
Figure 1Progression of high-fat diet (HFD) induced steatosis in zebrafish larvae to a steatohepatitis-like state upon co-exposure to ethanol and benzo[a]pyrene. Zebrafish larvae were fed with a HFD from 4 days post-fertilization (dpf) until 5 dpf and compared to larvae fed with a standard diet (SD) in order to observe the development of steatosis at 5 dpf (A,B). Lipid accumulation was analyzed after Nile red staining in HFD larvae as well as in SD larvae using confocal microscopy (excitation/emission (ex/em) wavelength: 488/500–560 nm, magnification ×400). (A) Representative images of larva staining are presented in which the liver has been outlined in white. (B) In order to estimate the relative amount of neutral lipids in the liver, the ratio of fluorescence intensity was calculated from images of more than 15 larvae per diet as follows: Fluorescence ratio = (intensity of neutral lipid staining with Nile red (ex/em wavelength: 488/500–560 nm)/(intensity of unspecific staining (autofluorescence; ex/em wavelength: 405/450–480 nm))). Values are the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) of at least 12 larvae per diet. Zebrafish larvae fed with HFD from 4 dpf and exposed to ethanol and/or B[a]P for seven days from 5 to 12-dpf to achieve four conditions—untreated (C) or treated with 25 nM B[a]P (B), 43 mM ethanol (E) or a combination of both toxicants (BE,C,D). (C) Liver damage was evaluated on zebrafish liver sections after HES staining (magnification ×400). Black dotted line outlines liver. Histological liver sections were magnified to show, surrounded by the white dotted line, a normal hepatocyte, a vacuolized hepatocyte, a cellular dropout and a ballooning hepatocyte (red arrow). Images are representative of at least five larvae. (D) From images obtained in (C), the histological count of damaged cells was realized. Values are the mean ± SEM of at least five larvae. ## Significantly different from SD larvae; * Significantly different from HFD control larvae; a Significantly different from larvae treated by ethanol only; b Significantly different from larvae treated by B[a]P only.
Figure 2Impact of B[a]P/ethanol co-exposure on the mRNA expression of several genes involved in different biological processes characteristic of steatohepatitis. mRNA expression was evaluated by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) (A–D). Zebrafish larvae were fed with HFD from 4 dpf and exposed to ethanol and/or B[a]P for seven days from 5 to 12 dpf to achieve four conditions—untreated (C) or treated with 25 nM B[a]P (B), 43 mM ethanol (E) or a combination of both toxicants (BE). For the experiments with paracetamol, 1 mM paracetamol was added to the incubation medium containing zebrafish larvae from 5 to 12 dpf. mRNA expression of genes characteristic of inflammation and cell death (A), hepatotoxicity (B,C) and general cellular stress response (D) are shown. Data are expressed relative to mRNA levels found in HFD control larvae, set at 0 (log 2 change). Values are the mean ± SEM. * Significantly different from HFD control larvae; a Significantly different from larvae treated by ethanol only; b Significantly different from larvae treated by B[a]P only.
Figure 3Co-exposure to alcohol and benzo[a]pyrene-induced membrane remodeling in the liver of HFD zebrafish larvae. Membrane order and lipid raft spatial distribution characteristics of membrane remodeling was assessed in liver cells of steatotic zebrafish larvae after co-exposure to ethanol and B[a]P for seven days from 5 to 12 dpf. Zebrafish larvae under two conditions—untreated (C) or treated with combination of 43 mM ethanol and 25 nM B[a]P (BE)—were stained with di-4-ANEPPDHQ—a membrane order-sensitive fluorescent probe—and analyzed by confocal fluorescence microscopy. Membrane order in membranes of zebrafish liver was measured by computing the generalized polarization (GP) factor. (A) Changes in GP values were expressed as the difference between individual larva GP value and the mean of GP found in control larvae (ΔGP). (B) On the left, some representative liver images of each treatment have been selected according to the respective mean of delta GP (magnification ×400). Pixels with higher GP values (which could be considered as lipid rafts) have been highlighted in yellow to pinpoint lipid raft spatial distribution. The liver area outlined in the white square on the left images are magnified on the right side to show lipid raft spatial distribution in the plasma membrane. Values are the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) of at least 25 larvae. * Significantly different from HFD control larvae.
Figure 4Protective effect of pravastatin towards membrane remodeling and hepatotoxicity-induced by B[a]P/ethanol in HFD zebrafish larvae. Membrane remodeling was assessed in the liver of HFD steatotic zebrafish larvae after exposure to ethanol and B[a]P for seven days with and without pravastatin (0.5 µM) from 5 to 12 dpf. Zebrafish larvae under four conditions, control (untreated (C) ± Pravastatin), or treated with combination of both toxicants (BE ± Pravastatin; 25 nM B[a]P and 43 mM ethanol) were stained with di-4-ANEPPDHQ—a membrane order-sensitive fluorescent probe—and analyzed on confocal fluorescence microscopy. Membrane order in membranes of zebrafish liver was measured by computing GP factor. (A) Changes in GP values were expressed as the difference between individual larva GP value and the mean of GP found in control larvae (ΔGP). Values are the mean ± SEM of at least eight larvae. (B) On the left, some representative liver images of each treatment have been selected according to the respective mean of delta GP (magnification ×400). Pixels with higher GP values (could be considered as lipid rafts) have been highlighted in yellow through membrane area of liver cells to pinpoint lipid raft spatial distribution. Liver area outlined in white square on left images are magnified on right side to show lipid raft spatial distribution in plasma membrane. (C) Liver damages were evaluated on zebrafish liver section after HES staining (magnification ×400). Black dotted line outlines liver. Images are representative of at least 3 larvae. (D) From images obtained in (C), histological count of damaged cells was realized. Values are the mean ± SEM of at least three larvae. * Significantly different from HFD control larvae; P Significant difference between larvae treated by pravastatin compared to untreated counterparts.
Figure 5Impact of pravastatin on mRNA expression of several genes involved in different biological processes characteristic of steatohepatitis after exposing HFD zebrafish larvae to a combination of B[a]P and ethanol. mRNA expressions of several genes were evaluated by RT-qPCR (A–C). Zebrafish larvae were fed with HFD from 4 dpf and from 5 dpf, they were either left untreated (C) or treated with co-exposure of 43 mM ethanol and 25 nM B[a]P (BE) until 12 dpf. Both conditions were also treated with 0.5 µM pravastatin as quoted as (C ± pravastatin) and (BE ± pravastatin), respectively. mRNA expressions of genes characteristic of inflammation and cell death (A), hepatotoxicity (B) and general cellular stress response (C) are shown. Data are expressed relative to mRNA level found in HFD control larvae, set at 0 (log 2 change). Values are the mean ± SEM. * Significantly different from HFD control larvae; P Significant difference between larvae treated by pravastatin compared to untreated counterparts.
List of primers used for RT-qPCR experiments.
| Gene | Official Full Name | Accession Number | Forward Primer | Reverse Primer |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actin, beta 2 | NM_181601.4 | 5′-TTCTCTTAAGTCGACAACCCCC-3′ | 5′-TACCAACCATGACACCCTGAT-3′ | |
| - | NR_145818.1 | 5′-TTACCCCAGGCTCGGAAAAC-3′ | 5′-CGGGAAGGTCTTTGAACCCA-3′ | |
| Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase | NM_001115114.1 | 5′-GAGGCTTCTCACAAACGAGGA-3′ | 5′-TGGCCACGATCTCCACTTTC-3′ | |
| C-reactive protein | NM_001045860.1 | 5′-CATTAGAGGCTACCGAAGGTTT-3′ | 5’-GACTCAGGGGTTTTTCAGGATA-3′ | |
| Nuclear factor kappa B | NM_001001839.2 | 5′-CAACGACACCACGAAAACG-3′ | 5′-CGTCAGGAATCTTGAATGGGT-3′ | |
| Interleukin 1β | NM_212844.2 | 5′-GAACAGAATGAAGCACATCAAACC-3′ | 5′-ACGGCACTGAATCCACCAC-3′ | |
| Interleukun6 | NM_001261449.1 | 5’-TCAACTTCTCCAGCGTGATG-3′ | 5’-TCTTTCCCTCTTTTCCTCCTG-3′ | |
| Caspase 3a | NM_131877.3 | 5’-TCGGTTCTCGCTGTTGAAGG-3′ | 5′-GTCTCCGTATCCGCATGTCC-3′ | |
| Transforming growth factor β 1a | NM_182873.1 | 5′-GGAAGGCAACACAAGGTGGA-3′ | 5′-GGCTTACTTATCAATCCCGACT-3′ | |
| Transferrin a | NM_001291499.1 | 5’-GAAAATCCCAGAGTCAGCCA-3’ | 5′-TTCATCTCCAACAGCCTTCC-3′ | |
| Ferric chelate reductase 1 | NM_001089557.2 | 5’-CCCAGAGGCTGCTGTTTATT-3’ | 5′-GCCGTGATTAGGCATCATAGAG-3′ | |
| Nuclear factor (eruthroid-derived 2)-like2 | NM_182889.1 | 5′-TCGGGTTTGTCCCTAGATG-3′ | 5′-AGGTTTGGAGTGTCCGCTA-3′ | |
| Glutathione S-transferase pi | NM_131734.3 | 5′-ACACACTCACATACTTCGCA-3′ | 5′-GTCGCCCTTCATCCACTCTT-3′ | |
| NADPH dehydrogenase, quinone 1 | NM_001204272.1 | 5′-TCTGACAAAGAAAGGCTACAAAGTC-3′ | 5′-ATACACAAAGTGCTCGGGATT-3′ |