| Literature DB >> 30526624 |
Guangyan Wu1,2, Mengwei Niu1,2, Wenli Tang3, Jingjuan Hu1,2, Guoquan Wei1,2, Zhanke He1,2, Yangping Chen1,2, Yong Jiang1,2, Peng Chen4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: L-Fucose (Fuc), a six-deoxy hexose monosaccharide, is present endogenously in humans and animals and has a wide range of biological functions. In the present study, we aimed to examine the effect of Fuc on obesity and hepatic steatosis in mice fed a high-fat diet (HFD).Entities:
Keywords: Gut microbiota; Hepatic steatosis; High-fat diet; L-Fucose; Obesity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30526624 PMCID: PMC6286552 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-018-1718-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Fig. 1Metagenomic analysis showed that HFD altered the cecal microbial function. a Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) based on metagenomic analysis for cecal content DNA of NC and HFD mice (n = 4). b Volcano plot analysing genomic abundance in the HFD group compared with those in the NC group. The x-coordinate is the (log) fold-change (FC) and the y-coordinate is the −log10 of the p-value from a t-test (n = 4). c Relative genomic abundance of alpha-l-fucosidase (fuca) in the cecal content of mice (n = 4). d Alpha-l-fucosidase (FUCA) levels in human stool samples (n = 8–9). Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. *p < 0.05, two-tailed Student’s t test, HFD group vs NC group
Fig. 2Fuc reduced HFD-induced obesity in mice. a Body weight gain. b Total body weight gain. c The index of epididymal fat (Epi). d The index of mesenteric fat (Mes). e The index of subcutaneous fat (Sub). f The index of brown adipose tissue (BAT). g Representative adipocyte size images of HE-stained sections of mouse epididymal fat (Epi) tissue from each group. Scale bar, 100 µm. h The adipocyte size quantification. n = 7–12. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. Difference between groups were assessed by one-way ANOVA. *p < 0.05, HFD group vs NC group; p < 0.05, HFD group vs HFD + Fuc group
Fig. 3Effects of Fuc on glucose tolerance. a Glucose tolerance test (GTT) and the area under curve (AUC) in each group (n = 4–10); b Insulin tolerance test (ITT) and the area under curve (AUC) in each group (n = 4–6). Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. Difference between groups were assessed by one-way ANOVA. *p < 0.05, HFD group vs NC group; p < 0.05, HFD group vs HFD + Fuc group
Fig. 4Fuc ameliorated HFD-induced hepatic steatosis in mice. a Plasma levels of cholesterol (CHOL). b Plasma levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL). c Hepatic triglyceride (TG) level. d Representative of HE-stained, Oil Red O-stained, and DHE-stained liver sections. Scale bars = 100 µm. n = 7–12. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. Difference between groups were assessed by one-way ANOVA. *p < 0.05, HFD group vs NC group; p < 0.05, HFD group vs HFD + Fuc group
Fig. 5Fuc influenced the composition of cecal microbiota in mice. a Alpha diversity indices (Chao 1, observed OTUs, Shannon and PD whole tree) in bacterial microbiomes. b Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) based on the abund jaccard distance analysis of operational taxonomic units (OTUs). c The principal component 1 (PC1) distance in abund jaccard distance analysis among the three groups. d Relative abundance at the class level of all the three groups. Relative abundance of e Deltaproteobacteria, f Deferribacteres, and g Actinobacteria at the class level. h Relative abundance of Bifidobacterium at the genus level. i Relative abundance at the family level of all the three groups. Relative abundance of j Desulfovibrionaceae, k Deferribacteraceae, l Porphyromonadaceae, and m Bifidobacteriaceae at the family level. n = 7–12. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. Difference between groups were assessed by one-way ANOVA. *p < 0.05, HFD group vs NC group; p < 0.05, HFD group vs HFD + Fuc group
Fig. 6Fuc influenced the function of cecal microbiota. a Heatmap showing the main functional pathways with differences among the groups; data were analyzed by Kruskal Waills test. b–g Representative of functional pathways. n = 7–12. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. Difference between groups were assessed by one-way ANOVA. *p < 0.05, HFD group vs NC group; p < 0.05, HFD group vs HFD + Fuc group