| Literature DB >> 30246797 |
Nan Wu1,2,3, Biao Wang1, Zheng-Wei Cui1,4, Xiang-Yang Zhang1,4, Ying-Yin Cheng1, Xuan Xu5, Xian-Mei Li1,4, Zhao-Xi Wang1,4, Dan-Dan Chen1,2,3, Yong-An Zhang1,2,3.
Abstract
In aquafeeds, fish-meal has been commonly replaced with plant protein, which often causes enteritis. Currently, foodborne enteritis has few solutions in regards to prevention or cures. The recovery mechanism from enteritis in herbivorous fish may further help understand prevention or therapy. However, few reports could be found regarding the recovery or resilience to fish foodborne enteritis. In this study, grass carp was used as an animal model for soybean meal induced enteritis and it was found that the fish could adapt to the soybean meal at a moderate level of substitution. Resilience to soybean meal stress was found in the 40% soybean meal group for juvenile fish at growth performance, morphological and gene expression levels, after a 7-week feeding trial. Furthermore, the intestinal transcriptomic data, including transcriptome and miRNAome, was applied to demonstrate resilience mechanisms. The result of this study revealed that in juvenile grass carp after a 7-week feeding cycle with 40% soybean meal, the intestine recovered via enhancing both an immune tolerance and wound healing, the liver gradually adapted via re-balancing immune responses, such as phagosome and complement cascades. Also, many immune factors in the gut and liver were systemically revealed among stages of on-setting, remising, and recovering (or relief). In addition, miRNA regulation played a key role in switching immune states. Thus, the present data systemically demonstrated that the molecular adaptation mechanism of fish gut-liver immunity is involved in the resilience to soybean meal stress.Entities:
Keywords: grass carp; gut-liver immunity; miRNAome; resilience; soybean meal induced enteritis; transcriptome
Year: 2018 PMID: 30246797 PMCID: PMC6140834 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01154
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Diet formulation and composition.
| Fish meal | 450.0 | 240.0 | 0.0 |
| Soybean meal | – | 400.0 | 700 |
| Glycine | 45.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Fish oil | 18.0 | 18.0 | 30.0 |
| Soybean oil | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 |
| Corn starch | 337.0 | 212.0 | 155.0 |
| Ca (H2PO4)2 | 24.0 | 24.0 | 24.0 |
| Mineral premix | 20.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 |
| Vitamin premix | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
| Choline chloride (500 g kg−1) | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 |
| Cellulose | 70.0 | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| Ethoxyquin (300 g kg−1) | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 1000.0 | 1000.0 | 1000.0 | |
Per kilogram of mineral premix (g kg.
Per kilogram of vitamin premix (g kg.
Growth indexes of grass carp fed with different diet for 7 weeks.
| IBW | 13.94 ± 0.63 | 13.83 ± 0.58 | 14.06 ± 0.48 |
| WG(%) | 266.08 ± 12.24c | 209.33 ± 15.44b | 90.09 ± 1.02a |
| FI | 59.68 ± 0.97b | 53.73 ± 0.99b | 34.93 ± 0.78a |
| FE | 62.57 ± 1.80c | 52.43 ± 0.97b | 37.08 ± 1.38a |
| SGR | 3.09 ± 0.08c | 2.69 ± 0.12b | 1.53 ± 0.01a |
| Survival rate | 100.00 ± 0.00b | 100.00 ± 0.00b | 95.00 ± 1.67a |
| HI | 3.18 ± 0.37b | 2.41 ± 0.24a | 2.14 ± 0.19a |
| ILI | 197.09 ± 14.69 | 189.69 ± 12.65 | 202.76 ± 14.80 |
| ISI | 4.74 ± 0.44c | 3.79 ± 0.33b | 3.18 ± 0.31a |
Values are means ± SD, means of three replicates with sixty fish per replicate. Mean values with different superscripts in the same row are significantly different (P < 0.05). IBW: Initial body weight (g/fish), WG(%): percentage weight gain (%), FI: food intake (g/fish), FE: feed efficiency (%), SGR: specific growth rate (%/day), survival rate (%), HI: hepatopancreatic index, ILI: intestine length index, ISI: intestosomatic index. Values are means ± SD, n = 10. Mean values with different superscripts in the same row are significantly different (P < 0.05).
Figure 1Average daily food intake (ADFI) of grass carp for different stages, including early (0–3 week), middle (3–5 week), and late (5–7 week) stages, in FM, 40SBM and 70SBM groups. The stars (*) represent the significant decreases while the hash (#) represents the significant increases in the food intakes compared to the previous stage for each group. The factor that ADFI in the 70SBM group was much lower than the 40SBM group was indicated by the snowflake ().
Figure 2Histological analysis of the gut and liver in tested grass carp. (A) HE staining of DI as well as oil red staining of liver in FM, 40SBM and 70SBM groups at different time points. The typical intestinal folds with less goblet cells, widened LP, shortened MF were indicated by arrows. The chronological change for both the height of the intestinal folds (B) and the area of hepatic oil drops (C) in FM, 40SBM and 70SBM groups. The pixel was classed as an absolute length unit, and percent of area was used for quantification. Eight images per sample were used for qualification for both height of MF and the % area of oil drops. Mean ± S.D. The significant decrease for height of MF as well as significant increase for % area of hepatic oil drops was indicated by stars. The stars represent the significance of the difference between the mean of each bar for either 40SBM or 70SBM compared to FM group.
Figure 3Immunohistochemistry analysis for the main lymphocytes and key cytokines involved in SBMIE. (A) IHC results for IgM, CD4, IL17 and IL10 in the gut and liver in all time points in 40SBM group as well as 0 days in FM group (negative control) and 3 week in 70SBM group (positive control). The green signals represent the examined protein, while the blue signals (stained by Hoechst 33342) represent the nuclei. The white arrows points out typical immunohistochemistry signals. Scale bar: 30 μm. (B) The quantification of IHC signals in both the gut (left) and liver (right). In the gut, the significant (p < 0.01) increase of signals compared to the sample at 0 days in LP or in IEL was indicated by stars or hashes. In the liver, for each protein, the signals were calculated for significant changes, indicated by lowercase letters “a, b, c, d, e”. For each protein, the same label means no difference. For comparing T cell and B cell signals, CD4 and IgM signals were calculated for p-value at each time point, the significant (p < 0.01) more CD4 was indicated by the star, whereas the significant result for IgM (p < 0.1) was indicated by hashes.
Figure 4Statistics of KEGG pathway enrichment of regulated immune genes of all stages, including early (0–3 weeks), middle (3–5 weeks), and late (5–7 weeks) stages, in the grass carp gut and liver. (A) The pathways for intestinal up-regulated pathways. (B) The pathways for intestinal down-regulated pathways. (C) The pathways for hepatic up-regulated pathways. (D) The pathways for hepatic down-regulated pathways. The clusterProfiler R package was used to test the statistical enrichment of differential expression genes in KEGG pathways, and those genes in the gene list of grass carp immune gene library were selected to generate the scatter plot by the ggplot2 (2.2.1) in R package. No. of genes was indicated by the size of dots, and the rich factor was labeled as the abscissa value. Q < 0.05, indicated by the colors green, yellow and red, was considered significant. All dots of genes showed in this figure were included as those significant.
Figure 5KEGG pathways for intestinal miRNAome for all stages, including early (0–3 weeks), middle (3–5 weeks), and late (5–7 weeks) stages, in grass carp. The clusterProfiler R package was used to test the statistical enrichment of differential expression miRNAs in KEGG pathways, then the ggplot2 (2.2.1) in R package was used to generate the scatter plot. No. of miRNAs was indicated by the size of dots, the rich factor was labeled as the abscissa value, and q-value was indicated by the color. Even though the q-values were not significant, the rich factors were enriched, for all the dots of miRNA in this figure.
The immune processes and immune gene categories involved in differentially expressed intestinal mRNA for each stage.
| The early stages (3 weeks vs. 0 days) | Antigen processing and regulators (9); inflammatory cytokines and receptors (15); adapters, effectors and signal transducers (1); T/B cell antigen activation (9); other genes related to immune response (6); | |
| The early stages (3 vs. 0 days) | Acute phase reactions (1); antigen processing and regulators (1); inflammatory cytokines and receptors (2); T/B cell antigen activation (3); other gene related to immune response (4) | |
| The middle stages (5 vs. 3 weeks) | Acute phase reactions (9); pattern recognition (4); antigen processing and regulators (5); complement system (18); inflammatory cytokines and receptors (20); adapters, effectors and signal transducers (10); T/B cell antigen activation (3); other genes related to immune response (14). | |
| The middle stages (5 vs. 3 weeks) | Pattern recognition (3); antigen processing and regulators (6); complement system (2); inflammatory cytokines and receptors (9); adapters, effectors and signal transducers (2); T/B cell antigen activation (2); other genes related to immune response (13). | |
| The late stages (7 vs. 5) | Pattern recognition (1); antigen processing and regulators (2); complement system (1); inflammatory cytokines and receptors (1); T/B cell antigen activation (1); other genes related to immune response (6). | |
| The late stages (7 vs. 5 weeks) | Pattern recognition (5); antigen processing and regulators (2); complement system (1); inflammatory cytokines and receptors (5); adapters, effectors and signal transducers (14); T/B cell antigen activation (4); other genes related to immune response (13). |
The bold immune gene categories were found regulate by miRNA, as shown in Table .
The immune processes and immune gene categories involved in differentially expressed hepatic mRNA for each stage.
| The early stages (3 vs. 0 days) UP (15) | Acute phase reactions (2); pattern recognition (3); antigen processing and regulators (3); complement system (2); inflammatory cytokines and receptors (2); adapters, effectors and signal transducers (1); T/B cell antigen activation (1); other genes related to immune response (1). | Macroglobulin; c-type lectin; LRR-containing proteins; nattectin; LRMP; MHC II; C1q; C1q and TNF related protein; chemokine receptor; GVIN; perforin 1; Ig light chain; myeloid cell related. |
| The early stages (3 vs. 0 days) DOWN (20) | Pattern recognition (4); antigen processing and regulators (1); inflammatory cytokines and receptors (3); adapter, effectors and signal transducers (3); T/B cell antigen activation (2) other genes related to immune response (7). | LRR-containing proteins; TGF, TGF receptor and related; FAM; TTN/TITIN; MAPK related; NFKBI and related; PPARA; SEMA; CEBP; DMBT; microtubule-associated; ubiquitin ligase; ubiquitin related. |
| The middle stages (5 vs. 3 weeks) UP (20) | Pattern recognition (7); antigen processing and regulators (2); inflammatory cytokines and receptors (4); adapters, effectors and signal transducers (1); innate immune cells related (1); other genes related to immune response (5). | HMG; LRR-containing proteins; scavenger receptor; CDK and related; HA2; CCR; FAM; integrin beta; CD276; MMD; CDBP; HSP; ubiquitin ligase. |
| The middle stages (5 vs. 3 weeks) DOWN (28) | Acute phase reactions (2); pattern recognition (6); antigen processing and regulators (2); complement system (3); inflammatory cytokines and receptors (3); adapters, effectors and signal transducers (2); innate immune cells related (1); other genes related to immune response (9). | Fibrinogen; macroglobulin; LRR-containing proteins; nattectin; NOD; LRMP; VEGF; C1q; C3; CFB; FAM; ILDR; TTN/TITIN; programmed cell death protein; DEDD; NCAM; GIAMP; HSP; platelet related; ubiquitin ligase. |
| The late stages (7 vs. 5 weeks) UP (52) | Acute phase reactions (6); pattern recognition (6);antigen processing and regulators (4); complement system (12); inflammatory cytokines and receptors (8); adapters, effectors and signal transducers (7); innate immune cells related (1); T/B cell antigen activation (2); other genes related to immune response (6). | Macroglobulin; fibrinogen; c-type lectin; HMG; LRR-containing proteins; CDK and related; LRMP; C1q; C3; C4; CFB; CFH; CFI; CCL; CRELD; FAM; ILDR; integrin alpha; LIFR; NFIL3; CIS; MAPK related; NFKBI and related; NLRC3; PPARA; RIP; TRAF related; MMD; GIAMP; HSP; myeloid cell related; oncogene; ubiquitin ligase; ubiquitin related. |
| The late stages (7 vs. 5 weeks) DOWN (27) | Pattern recognition (2);antigen processing and regulators (4); complement system (2); inflammatory cytokines and receptors (5); adapters, effectors and signal transducers (2); innate immune cells related (1); T/B cell antigen activation; (2).other genes related to immune response (9). | Galectin; CDC; CDK and related; C1q; C7; ACRs; EGF, EGFR and related; FAM; GVIN; programmed cell death protein; CD276; MMD; MAL; RGS; CEBP; GIAMP; HELLS; HSP; ubiquitin ligase; ubiquitin related. |
Figure 6The analysis involved major immune processes in different stages in the gut (left) or liver (right) (A) as well as at different time points (B) in grass carp. “0 days vs. 3 week” refers to the early stage; “5 vs. 3 week” refers to the middle stage; “7 vs. 5 week” refers to the late stage. The bar represents the gene numbers. The up-regulated gene number is in positive value, whereas the down-regulated gene number is in negative value.
The immune processes, immune gene categories and gene annotation for the immune checkpoints of homeostasis in the gut or liver.
| Acute phase reactions | - | |
| Antigen processing and regulators | - | |
| Inflammatory cytokines and receptors | ||
| T/B cell antigen activation | ||
| Other genes related to immune response | - |
The bold values denotes Immune gene category.
Figure 7The interaction network of miRNAs combines with mRNAs. (A) The relationship between total mRNAs and related miRNAs. Red circles and boxes represent up-regulated mRNA and miRNA respectively, whiles green circles and boxes represent down-regulated mRNA and miRNA. (B) The relationship between immune mRNAs and related miRNA. Red boxes and ovals represent up-regulated mRNAs and miRNAs respectively, whiles green ones represent down-regulated ones. (a) in the early stages; (b) in the middle stages; (c) in the late stages.
The immune gene related miRNAs and their target mRNAs in each stage in the gut.
| From day 0 to 3 weeks (the early stages) | Hemopexin; TGF, TGF receptor and related; PTKs; Myeloid cell related. | ||
| HA1; MHC II; CCL; CCR; chemokine receptor; IFN induced proteins and relevant; IL7R; granzyme; CD2; CD3; GIAMP; ubiquitin ligase. | |||
| Integrin alpha; TCR; BCL; CEBP. | |||
| Microglobulin; MHC II; MHC I; IIGP; FAM; IL21R; FGF and related; GVIN; TCR; CD226; VTCN; CD3; CD200; NK-lysin. | |||
| From 3 to 5 weeks (the middle stages) | LRR-containing proteins; MHC I related; CDK and related; TNF, TNR and related; MASP;FAM; IL7R;GVIN; NLRC3; PIGR; ADNP; GIAMP;HSP. | ||
| Fibrinogen; macroglobulin; plasminogen; C-type lectin; fish-egg lectin; galectin; intelectin; CDK and related; C1q; C5; C8; C9; MASP; CCR; EGF, EGFR and related; FAM; GVIN; IFN induced proteins and relevant; IRF; NFIL3; NLRC3; SOCS (1-7); FCGBP; RGS; caspase; CEBP; hepcidin; HSP; ubiquitin ligase. | |||
| LPS-anchor protein; TNF, TNR and related; C3aR; IL34; CD2; GIAMP. | |||
| Fibrinogen; CDK and related;C3; C1q; C1r; C7; CFLAR; CXCR;GVIN; IRF; NFKBI and related; caspase; oncogene; ubiquitin ligase. | |||
| From 5 to 7 weeks the late stages) | C1q; GVIN; FGF and related; CIS; MAPK;MAPK related; PPARA; NLRC3; Lysosomal protein; CD276; SOCS (1-7); BCL;GIAMP; HSP; oncogene; caspase; ubiquitin ligase. | ||
| HMG; MHC I related; CCR; CD48; CD82; GIAMP; caspase. | |||
| LPS-anchor protein; LRR-containing proteins; VEGF; CXCL; GVIN; IL20R; NLRC3; PPARA; BCL; NFAT; ubiquitin ligase. | |||
| CDK and related; C6; GIAMP; ubiquitin ligase. |
Figure 8Hypothesis for immune mechanism for both the pathology and the resilience to SEM stress in fish gut and liver. Both intestinal and hepatic immune genes play important roles, in different stages of such resilience different immune reactions may exist. In general, the final result of the resilience to SEM in grass carp includes the recovery of the gut and relief in the liver, since the hepatic immune reaction may be later and longer. During the whole processes, intestinal miRNA played a key role on timely transcriptional regulation. (A) Upon on-setting of SBMIE, the intestinal lymphocytes, including T, B and NK cell, responded quickly, and epithelial cell began apoptosis (indicated by down-regulated MCL-1). In liver, phagocytosis and Th1 response may increase, while the accumulation of Ig light chain indicated tissue damage, and down-regulated PPARa & NKKBI indicated breaking of homeostasis. (B) In the middle stages, intestinal activation of T cell and complement cascades were the main reactions, whereas some enhancing of autonomous resistance was also found. Also, the B7 stimulated hepatic T cell response (e.g., secretion of IL17 and IL10) as well as the alternatively activating of hepatic macrophages was dominating. Besides, the intestinal activated lymphocytes could also be found in liver. (C) In the late stages, in gut, the enhancing gene expression related to Treg and mast cell indicated tolerance. In addition, IL20R signaling might indicate intestinal wound healing. Whereas, in the liver, inhibited T/B cell response and increased homeostasis related genes indicated remising, yet complement cascades as well as both IL10 and IgM still kept working. As to the predicted effect of immune genes, the “–|” means inhibition while the blue arrow means activation, and for the blue arrow with rectangle head, the up or down direction means the up- or down-regulated of gene expression. Besides, the effect of miRNA, the black arrow points out the immune mRNA target of each miRNA.