| Literature DB >> 30021962 |
Wei-Chieh Mu1, Erin VanHoosier2, Carrie M Elks3, Ryan W Grant4.
Abstract
Aging is the main factor involved in the onset of degenerative diseases. Dietary protein restriction has been shown to increase the lifespan of rodents and improve metabolic phenotype. Branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) can act as nutrient signals that increase the lifespan of mice after prolonged supplementation. It remains unclear whether the combination of protein restriction and BCAA supplementation improves metabolic and immunological profiles during aging. Here, we investigated how dietary protein levels and BCAA supplementation impact metabolism and immune profile during a 12-month intervention in adult male C57BL/6J mice. We found that protein restriction improved insulin tolerance and increased hepatic fibroblast growth factor 21 mRNA, circulating interleukin (IL)-5 concentration, and thermogenic uncoupling protein 1 in subcutaneous white fat. Surprisingly, BCAA supplementation conditionally increased body weight, lean mass, and fat mass, and deteriorated insulin intolerance during protein restriction, but not during protein sufficiency. BCAA also induced pro-inflammatory gene expression in visceral adipose tissue under both normal and low protein conditions. These results suggest that dietary protein levels and BCAA supplementation coordinate a complex regulation of metabolism and tissue inflammation during prolonged feeding.Entities:
Keywords: body composition; branched-chain amino acids; glucose homeostasis; inflammation; low protein diet
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30021962 PMCID: PMC6073443 DOI: 10.3390/nu10070918
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Diet ingredients.
| Ingredient (g) | Control | Control + BCAA | Low Protein | Low Protein + BCAA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Casein | 140 | 140 | 70 | 70 |
| L-Leucine | 0 | 11.1 | 0 | 11.1 |
| L-Isoleucine | 0 | 8.2 | 0 | 8.2 |
| L-Valine | 0 | 8.2 | 0 | 8.2 |
| L-Cystine | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| Corn starch | 496 | 468 | 544 | 516 |
| Maltodextrin 10 | 125 | 125 | 125 | 125 |
| Sucrose | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Cellulose | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 |
| Soybean oil | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 |
| t-Butylhydroquinone | 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Mineral Mix S10022M | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 |
| Vitamin Mix V10037 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Choline Bitartrate | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| Macronutrient composition (kcal%) | Control | Control + BCAA | Low protein | Low protein + BCAA |
| Protein | 13 | 16 | 7 | 10 |
| Carbohydrate | 77 | 74 | 83 | 80 |
| Fat | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| kcal/g | 3.7 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 3.8 |
BCAA: Branched-chain amino acids.
Primer sequences.
| Gene | Primer Sequence |
|---|---|
| Ppib | F AGCAAGTTCCATCGTGTCATC |
| R CCGTAGTGCTTCAGCTTGA | |
| Ifn-γ | F CTGAGACAATGAACGCTACACA |
| R TCCACATCTATGCCACTTGAG | |
| Mcp1 | F CATCCACGTGTTGGCTCA |
| R AACTACAGCTTCTTTGGGACA | |
| Ucp1 | F CAAATCAGCTTTGCCTCACTC |
| R CACACCTCCAGTCATTAAGCC | |
| Adiponectin | F TGTCTGTACGATTGTCAGTGG |
| R GCAGGATTAAGAGGAACAGGAG | |
| Pgc-1α | F AGAAGTCCCATACACAACCG |
| R GGTCACTGGAAGATATGGCA | |
| Cidea | F TCAAACCATGACCGAAGTAGC |
| R GTAACCAGGCCAGTTGTGAT | |
| Fgf21 | F CAGCCTTAGTGTCTTCTCAGC |
| R GGGATGGGTCAGGTTCAGA | |
| Prdm16 | F CACAAGACATCTGAGGACACA |
| R CACTTGAACGGCTTCTCTTTG | |
| Cxcl5 | F TTCTGTTGCTGTTCACGCT |
| R ATCACCTCCAAATTAGCGATCA | |
| Arg1 | F GAATGGAAGAGTCAGTGTGGT |
| R AGTGTTGATGTCAGTGTGAGC | |
| Il-10 | F GTCATCGATTTCTCCCCTGTG |
| R ATGGCCTTGTAGACACCTTG | |
| Tnf-α | F AGACCCTCACACTCAGATCA |
| R TCTTTGAGATCCATGCCGTTG |
Figure 1BCAA supplementation conditionally increased body weight in mice fed a low protein diet. Body weight (A), body length (B), and femur length. (C) were measured (n = 12–20 mice/group). The average daily food intake (g/cage/day normalized by the number of mice per cage) and energy intake (kcal/cage/day normalized by the number of mice per cage) (D) and lean and fat mass gain normalized to energy intake (E) were also calculated (n = 6–7 cages/group). Data represent mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Statistical analyses of main effects (protein, BCAA, and time) and interactions (protein*BCAA and protein*BCAA*time) are shown below each graph. * p < 0.05 for low protein vs. low protein + BCAA in panel A. BCAA: Branched-chain amino acids.
Body composition and bone mineral density.
| Dietary Groups | Baseline | 6 Months | 12 Months | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lean mass (g) | Control | 22.63 ± 0.55 | 25.88 ± 0.65 ab | 26.45 ± 0.63 a |
| Control + BCAA | 22.30 ± 0.48 | 26.33 ± 0.77 ab | 26.45 ± 0.79 a | |
| Low protein | 22.37 ± 0.43 | 23.67 ± 0.58 b | 23.61 ± 0.48 b | |
| Low protein + BCAA | 22.86 ± 0.53 | 26.49 ± 0.52 a | 27.04 ± 0.63 a | |
| Fat mass (g) | Control | 4.33 ± 0.16 | 11.10 ± 0.56 ab | 12.67 ± 0.67 ab |
| Control + BCAA | 4.37 ± 0.14 | 11.82 ± 0.70 ab | 14.21 ± 0.75 ab | |
| Low protein | 4.51 ± 0.21 | 9.14 ± 0.88 b | 10.73 ± 0.94 b | |
| Low protein + BCAA | 4.22 ± 0.16 | 12.98 ± 0.59 a | 15.95 ± 0.88 a | |
| Femur BMD (g/cm2) | Control | 0.071 ± 0.002 | 0.079 ± 0.001 | 0.076 ± 0.002 |
| Control + BCAA | 0.067 ± 0.002 | 0.075 ± 0.002 | 0.074 ± 0.001 | |
| Low protein | 0.067 ± 0.002 * | 0.073 ± 0.001 * | 0.071 ± 0.001 * | |
| Low protein + BCAA | 0.072 ± 0.002 | 0.076 ± 0.002 | 0.073 ± 0.001 | |
| Femur BMC (g) | Control | 0.037 ± 0.002 | 0.038 ± 0.001 | 0.036 ± 0.001 |
| Control + BCAA | 0.037 ± 0.002 | 0.036 ± 0.001 | 0.034 ± 0.001 | |
| Low protein | 0.034 ± 0.001 | 0.034 ± 0.001 | 0.031 ± 0.001 | |
| Low protein + BCAA | 0.037 ± 0.001 | 0.035 ± 0.001 | 0.033 ± 0.001 |
Data represent mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) (n = 17–20 mice/group). Different letters (a, b) denote significant differences between groups in Tukey multiple comparisons test within the same time point. * p < 0.05 for control vs. low protein. BMD: bone mineral density; BMC: bone mineral content.
Figure 2The low protein diet improved insulin tolerance but did not affect glucose tolerance. Blood glucose across time (A) and area under the curve (AUC) (B) were recorded calculated from the GTT. The response to insulin as a percentage of fasting blood glucose was calculated for the ITT time course (C) and the corresponding AUC (D). Data represent mean ± SEM (n = 8–12 mice/group). Statistical analyses of main effects (protein and BCAA) and interactions (protein*BCAA) are shown below panels (B,D). $ p < 0.05 between the young and the old control groups by Student’s t test. GTT: glucose tolerance test; ITT: Insulin tolerance test.
Figure 3Low protein diet upregulated Fgf21 mRNA in the liver and thermogenic gene expression in inguinal white adipose tissue (IWAT). The liver mRNA expression of Fgf21 (A) and plasma FGF21 concentrations (B) were measured. The mRNA expression of Ucp1, Cidea, Pgc-1α, and Prdm16 was measured in IWAT (C). Data represent mean ± SEM (n = 8–12 mice/group). Statistical analyses of main effects (protein and BCAA) and interactions (protein*BCAA) are shown below each graph. $ p < 0.05 for young vs. old control groups.
Figure 4BCAA supplementation induced Ifn-γ, Tnf, and Mcp1 expression in white adipose tissue and liver, while Cxcl5 expression was differentially regulated by diets across tissues. The relative gene expression levels of pro-inflammatory Ifn-γ, Tnf, Mcp1, and Cxcl5 were measured in IWAT (A), epididymal white adipose tissue (EWAT) (B), and liver (C). Data represent mean ± SEM (n = 8–12 mice per group). Statistical analyses of main effects (protein and BCAA) and interactions (protein*BCAA) are shown below each graph. $ p < 0.05 for young vs. old control groups.
Figure 5Dietary intervention differentially impacted anti-inflammatory gene expression in white adipose tissue and liver. The relative gene expression levels of anti-inflammatory Il-10, Arg1, and adiponectin were measured in IWAT (A) and EWAT (B) and liver (C). Data represent mean ± SEM (n = 8–12 mice/group). Statistical analyses of main effects (protein and BCAA) and interactions (protein*BCAA) are shown below each graph. $ p < 0.05 for young vs. old control groups.
Figure 6BCAA supplementation increased thymus weight but did not affect thymocyte cell counts or T-cell populations. Thymus weight was recorded at end of study (A), and thymocyte cell counts were calculated (B). The quantification of CD4−CD8− double negative, CD4+CD8+ double positive, CD4+ single positive, and CD8+ single positive T-cell populations in the thymus (C). Data represent mean ± SEM (n = 11–12 mice/group). Statistical analyses of main effects (protein and BCAA) and interactions (protein*BCAA) are shown below each graph. $ p < 0.05 for the young vs. old control groups.
Figure 7BCAA supplementation increased spleen weight, while dietary intervention had no impact on splenocyte cell counts and the percentages of naive and memory T lymphocytes in spleen. Spleen weight was recorded (A), and splenocyte cell counts were calculated (B). The quantification of CD4+, and the naïve (CD4+CD62L+CD44−) and memory (CD4+CD62L−CD44+) CD4+ subpopulations in spleen (C). The quantification of CD8+, and the naïve (CD8+CD62L+CD44−), central memory (CD8+CD62L+CD44+), and effector memory (CD8+CD62L−CD44+) CD8+ subpopulations in spleen (D). Data represent mean ± SEM (n = 11–12 mice/group). Statistical analyses of main effects (protein and BCAA) and interactions (protein*BCAA) are shown below each graph. $ p < 0.05 for the young vs. old control groups.
Figure 8Low protein diet increased circulating IL-5 levels. Plasma pro-inflammatory cytokines IFN-γ (A) and TNF-α (B), and anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-5 (C) and IL-10 (D) were determined using multiplex assays. Data represent mean ± SEM (n = 12 mice/group). Statistical analyses of main effects (protein and BCAA) and interactions (protein*BCAA) are shown below each graph.
Top canonical pathways identified in liver proteomics analysis.
| Dietary Groups | Name | Overlap | Molecules (Direction of Regulation) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low protein vs. Control | Oxidative phosphorylation | 18/109 | COX4I1, NDUFA12, SDHA, NDUFB8, NDUFV1, NDUFA2, ATP5D, COX6C, NDUFS1, SDHB, COX7A2, NDUFS2, ATP5L, NDUFA6, NDUFA3, ATP5C1, NDUFB4, NDUFV2 (all upregulated by low protein) |
| Mitochondrial dysfunction | 19/171 | COX4I1, HSD17B10, NDUFA12, SDHA, NDUFB8, NDUFV1, NDUFA2, ATP5D, COX6C, NDUFS1, SDHB, COX7A2, NDUFS2, ATP5L, NDUFA6, NDUFA3, ATP5C1, NDUFB4, NDUFV2 (all upregulated by low protein) | |
| Superpathway of Citrulline Metabolism | 8/14 | OAT, OTC, CPS1, ASS1, ARG1, PRODH, GLS2, ASL (all upregulated by low protein) | |
| Urea Cycle | 5/6 | OAT, CPS1, ASS1, ARG1, ASL (all upregulated by low protein) | |
| Citrulline Biosynthesis | 5/8 | OAT, OTC, ARG1, PRODH, GLS2 (all upregulated by low protein) | |
| Low protein vs. Low protein + BCAA | Tyrosine Degradation I | 3/5 | FAH, HGD, HPD (all downregulated by low protein) |
| Urea Cycle | 3/6 | OTC, ARG1, ASL (all downregulated by low protein) | |
| Cysteine Biosynthesis/Homocysteine Degradation | 2/2 | CBS, CTH (both downregulated by low protein) | |
| Superpathway of Citrulline Metabolism | 3/14 | OTC, ARG1, ASL (all downregulated by low protein) | |
| TCA Cycle II (Eukaryotic) | 3/23 | SDHB, FH, SDHA (all downregulated by low protein) |
Pathways identified by INGENUITY when comparing different dietary groups. n = 8 mice per group. See Table S2 for full protein names.