| Literature DB >> 30984339 |
Tiechao Jiang1,2, Xiaohong Xing1, Lirong Zhang3, Zhen Liu4, Jixue Zhao5, Xin Liu6.
Abstract
We explored the effects of chitosan oligosaccharides (COS) on coronary heart disease (CHD) patients. The component of COS was measured by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). CHD patients were evenly assigned into the COS group (COG) and the placebo group (CG). The duration of treatment was 6 months and therapeutic results were explored by measuring left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) value, Lee scores, quality of life (QOL), blood urea nitrogen, and serum creatinine. The intestinal flora were determined by 16s rDNA sequencing. The circulating antioxidant levels and lipid profiles were compared between two groups. There were 7 different degrees of polymerization (DP4-10) in COS. Lee scores, QOL scores, and LVEF values in the COG group were higher than those in the CG group (P < 0.05). COS treatment improved blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinine when compared with controls (P < 0.05). Circulating antioxidant levels were higher in the COG group than in the CG group. COS consumption increased the serum levels of SOD and GSH and reduced the levels of ALT and AST (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, lipid profiles were improved in the COG group. COS consumption increased the abundance of Faecalibacterium, Alistipes, and Escherichia and decreased the abundance of Bacteroides, Megasphaera, Roseburia, Prevotella, and Bifidobacterium (P < 0.05). On the other hand, COS consumption increased the probiotic species Lactobacillus, Lactococcus, and Phascolarctobacterium. The increased species have been reported to be associated with antioxidant properties or lipid improvement. COS had similar effects with chitohexaose on the growth rate of these species. Therefore, COS ameliorate the symptoms of CHD patients by improving antioxidant capacities and lipid profiles via the increase of probiotics in the intestinal flora.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30984339 PMCID: PMC6431530 DOI: 10.1155/2019/7658052
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Figure 1Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) analysis of the main components of chitosan oligosaccharides (COS). (a) The main components of food-grade COS with different degrees of polymerization DP4-10. (b) Chitohexaose with molecular weight [M+H]+ = 990.1 Da. (c) Chitoheptaose with molecular weight [M+H]+ = 1152.1 Da. (d) Chitooctaose with molecular weight [M+H]+ = 1314.2 Da.
Clinical characteristics between COS and placebo groups.
| Parameters | COS | Placebo |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (male/female) | 30/26 | 31/23 | 0.164 | 0.686 |
| Age (yr) | 39.29 ± 13.36 | 41.23 ± 12.98 | -1.307 | 0.189 |
| SBP (mm Hg) | 125.21 ± 11.62 | 128.54 ± 12.76 | -1.685 | 0.087 |
| DBP (mm Hg) | 87.23 ± 7.16 | 88.53 ± 7.38 | -1.290 | 0.157 |
| BMI | 24.93 ± 2.94 | 24.52 ± 2.68 | -1.564 | 0.198 |
| Cr ( | 85.34 ± 13.58 | 87.24 ± 14.56 | -1.344 | 0.156 |
| HbA1C (%) | 8.47 ± 0.93 | 8.75 ± 0.96 | -0.664 | 0.256 |
| ACE-In | 7 | 8 | 2.47 | 0.48 |
| ARBS | 3 | 6 | ||
| Beta-blockers | 5 | 6 | ||
| Diuretics | 8 | 4 |
Chi-square test and t-test were used to compare the significant difference between the two groups. BMI: body mass index; ACE-In: angiotensin-converting enzyme; ARBS: angiotensin receptor blockers. All data were presented as mean value ± S.D. There were significantly statistical differences between two groups if P < 0.05.
The therapeutic results of COS.
| Before treatment | After treatment |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blood urea nitrogen (mg/dL) | COS | 19.13 ± 6.85 | 15.33 ± 6.24 | 6.42 | 0.02b |
| Placebo | 18.73 ± 6.54 | 17.25 ± 5.98 | 1.16 | 0.23 | |
|
| 0.39 | 3.21 | |||
|
| 0.54 | 0.02a | |||
| Serum creatinine (mg/dL) | COS | 1.41 ± 0.32 | 1.04 ± 0.27 | 8.65 | 0.01b |
| Placebo | 1.35 ± 0.27 | 1.29 ± 0.22 | 0.35 | 0.24 | |
|
| 0.25 | 4.37 | |||
|
| 0.66 | 0.02a | |||
| Lee scores | COS | 4.52 ± 1.87 | 2.18 ± 0.43 | 5.38 | 0.01b |
| Placebo | 4.27 ± 1.79 | 4.19 ± 0.78 | 0.25 | 0.31 | |
|
| 0.26 | 4.12 | |||
|
| 0.68 | 0.02a | |||
| Quality-of-life (QOL) scores | COS | 43.61 ± 3.38 | 21.73 ± 4.12 | 13.40 | 0.01b |
| Placebo | 42.50 ± 3.25 | 39.39 ± 4.36 | 0.45 | 0.29 | |
|
| 0.36 | 2.13 | |||
|
| 0.75 | 0.02a | |||
| LVEF | COS | 29.06 ± 9.34 | 36.82 ± 10.43 | 3.03 | 0.02b |
| Placebo | 28.74 ± 8.15 | 30.73 ± 10.21 | 1.10 | 0.08 | |
|
| 0.92 | 2.17 | |||
|
| 0.36 | 0.03a |
Note: LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction. n = 60 for each group. aP < 0.05 vs. the placebo group and bP < 0.05 vs. before treatment. There were significantly statistical differences between the two groups if P < 0.05.
Figure 2The effects of COS on intestinal flora. (a) The abundance of intestinal flora before COS treatment. (b) The abundance of intestinal flora after 6-month treatment.
Figure 3Real-time analysis of the effects of COS on the growth of intestinal flora. (a) The effects of COS on the growth of Escherichia coli. (b) The effects of COS on the growth of Megasphaera elsdenii. (c) The effects of COS on the growth of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. (d) The effects of COS on the growth of Alistipes shahii. (e) The effects of COS on the growth of Prevotella bivia. (f) The effects of COS on the growth of Roseburia intestinalis. (g) The effects of COS on the growth of Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron. (h) The effects of COS on the growth of Bifidobacterium bifidum. Mix: food-grade COS, DP4-10 chitosan oligosaccharides; DP6: chitohexaose hydrochloride (MW 1203.72); DP7: chitoheptaose hydrochloride (MW1401.3); and DP8: chitooctaose hydrochloride (MW1598.94). ∗P < 0.05 vs. the control group without COS.
Lipid profiles between two groups.
| COS | Placebo |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before therapy | TC (mmol/L) | 5.42 ± 0.63 | 5.70 ± 0.81 | -0.621 | 0.284 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 2.34 ± 0.81 | 2.17 ± 0.92 | -2.108 | 0.129 | |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 2.11 ± 0.62 | 2.31 ± 0.81 | -1.834 | 0.167 | |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.83 ± 0.42 | 1.65 ± 0.38 | -2.609 | 0.094 | |
| After therapy | TC (mmol/L) | 4.89 ± 0.87 | 5.81 ± 0.72 | -1.982 | 0.013 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 2.01 ± 0.65 | 2.24 ± 0.83 | -2.696 | 0.035 | |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.81 ± 0.54 | 2.40 ± 0.75 | -1.992 | 0.031 | |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | 2.13 ± 0.40 | 1.71 ± 0.46 | -2.852 | 0.009 |
Note: there were significant statistical differences between two groups if P < 0.05.
Antioxidant levels between two groups.
| COS | Placebo |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before therapy | SOD (U/mL) | 12.25 ± 4.06 | 11.30 ± 4.21 | 0.79 | 0.46 |
| GSH (U/mL) | 9.20 ± 2.99 | 9.35 ± 2.73 | 0.12 | 0.81 | |
| ALT (U/mL) | 68.79 ± 9.03 | 65.52 ± 8.76 | 0.35 | 0.47 | |
| AST (U/mL) | 198.21 ± 27.21 | 190.36 ± 20.38 | 0.83 | 0.12 | |
| After therapy | SOD (U/mL) | 21.34 ± 3.78 | 13.49 ± 4.71 | 8.77 | 0.01 |
| GSH (ng/L) | 15.26 ± 3.12 | 10.59 ± 2.01 | 6.25 | 0.01 | |
| ALT (U/L) | 61.03 ± 12.27 | 66.49 ± 8.24 | 4.31 | 0.02 | |
| AST (U/L) | 147.43 ± 21.73 | 188.52 ± 23.62 | 7.04 | 0.01 |
Note: there were significant statistical differences between two groups if P < 0.05.
Figure 4COS show health-promoting properties for coronary heart disease by affecting intestinal flora via chitooctaose. COS increase the levels of probiotics, which exert antioxidant properties and improve lipid profiles. All the function will be beneficial in the prevention of CHD.