| Literature DB >> 31555127 |
Duosheng Luo1,2, Jingbiao Li1,2, Kechun Chen1,2, Yifan Yin1,2, Zhaoyan Fang1,2, Huiting Pang1,2, Xianglu Rong1,2, Jiao Guo1,2.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the metabolic trajectory of liver aging, the effect of FTZ against liver aging in aging mice, and its mechanism using ultraperformance liquid chromatography/quadrupole-time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UPLC-Q-TOF/MS).Entities:
Keywords: Fufang Zhenzhu Tiaozhi; liver aging; mass spectrometry; metabolomics; ultra-performance liquid chromatography
Year: 2019 PMID: 31555127 PMCID: PMC6722462 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00926
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.810
Figure 1(A–B) Feed intake, (C–D) body weight, and (E–F) tissue wet weight coefficient of mice. All data were expressed as the means ± SD. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 compared to model 3 group; ▲P < 0.05 compared to model 20 group.
Figure 2(A–B) TG and TC contents in liver of aging mice. (C–D) Liver function indicators AST and ALT levels. (E) Mouse liver pathology H&E staining (100x). **P < 0.01 compared to model 3 group; ▲▲P < 0.01 compared to model 20 group.
Figure 3Profiling and multivariate statistical analysis. (A) Base-peak intensity chromatograms of different groups in positive ion mode obtained from UPLC-TOF/MS analysis. (B) Base-peak intensity chromatograms of different groups in negative ion mode obtained from UPLC-TOF/MS analysis. (C) Score plot of OPLS-DA of different groups (R2Y = 0.869, Q2 = 0.779). (D) Loading plot of OPLS-DA in positive ion mode from different groups.
Identified potential biomarkers in liver and fold changes (FC) among different groups.
| No. | Maker | VIP | FC (M9/M3) | FC (M14/M3) | FC (M20/M3) | FC (F20/M20) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Taurocholic acid | 11.02 | 0.90 | 1.44 | 2.49 | 0.53 |
| 2 | Bovinic acid | 9.08 | 1.76 | 1.03 | 1.28 | 1.19 |
| 3 | 15-Hydroxyicosanoic acid | 8.74 | 1.72 | 1.31 | 1.39 | 1.35 |
| 4 | Arachidonic acid | 7.95 | 1.59 | 1.17 | 1.08 | 1.63 |
| 5 | Palmitoleic acid | 5.20 | 2.07 | 1.16 | 1.34 | 1.06 |
| 6 | γ-Linolenic acid | 4.34 | 2.14 | 1.18 | 1.73 | 0.84 |
| 7 | LysoPE (16:0/0:0) | 3.86 | 1.17 | 1.11 | 1.36 | 0.78 |
| 8 | 20-HETE | 3.51 | 2.86 | 1.56 | 3.08 | 0.10 |
| 9 | 3b,7a,12a-Trihydroxy-5b-cholanoic acid | 3.50 | 1.27 | 3.56 | 7.05 | 0.57 |
| 10 | LysoPE (0:0/24:0) | 3.40 | 1.06 | 0.90 | 0.82 | 1.14 |
| 11 | PA (P-16:0e/18:2(9Z,12Z)) | 3.38 | 2.05 | 1.36 | 1.65 | 1.33 |
| 12 | LysoPC (16:0) | 3.25 | 0.99 | 1.05 | 1.01 | 1.11 |
| 13 | Glycerol triundecanoate | 2.83 | 2.39 | 1.74 | 3.07 | 0.70 |
| 14 | 7-Ketodeoxycholic acid | 2.76 | 0.30 | 10.26 | 15.70 | 0.93 |
| 15 | N-Acetyl-leukotriene E4 | 2.71 | 1.11 | 1.04 | 1.19 | 1.09 |
| 16 | 3-Oxocholic acid | 2.65 | 0.90 | 3.27 | 4.77 | 0.31 |
| 17 | 12-HETE | 2.45 | 1.05 | 0.91 | 1.29 | 1.14 |
| 18 | 20-Hydroxy-leukotriene E4 | 2.30 | 1.18 | 1.95 | 3.79 | 0.55 |
| 19 | Docosahexaenoic acid | 2.16 | 1.25 | 1.50 | 0.47 | 5.42 |
| 20 | 6-Phosphogluconic acid | 2.04 | 1.14 | 1.24 | 0.87 | 1.97 |
| 21 | 17-Hydroxylinolenic acid | 1.99 | 1.20 | 0.76 | 1.18 | 1.48 |
| 22 | 11,14,17-Eicosatrienoic acid | 1.96 | 1.60 | 1.23 | 1.12 | 1.74 |
| 23 | D-Glutamine | 1.87 | 0.26 | 0.73 | 0.39 | 2.91 |
| 24 | γ-Glutamylcysteine | 1.87 | 2.59 | 1.06 | 2.09 | 0.63 |
| 25 | Taurodeoxycholic acid | 1.76 | 0.28 | 0.63 | 0.78 | 0.62 |
When the variance was homogeneous, the LSD method was used for multiple analysis. When the variance was not uniform, the Games-Howell method was used for multiple analysis.
VIP values were obtained from the model.
Fold change (FC) was calculated based on a binary logarithm for model vs. control and FTZ vs. model. FC with a value greater than zero indicates a higher intensity of the plasma metabolite, while a FC value less than zero indicates a lower intensity of the plasma metabolite.
Figure 4OPLS-DA-based ROC curves of the 25 potential biomarker of anti-liver aging effects of FTZ. The associated AUC, 95% CI, sensitivities, and specificities were indicated.
Ingenuity pathway analysis with MetPA from differential biomarkers.
| Pathway name | Total metabolites | Hits | p | -Log( | Holm | FDR | Impact | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biosynthesis of unsaturated fatty acids | 42 | 3 | 0.0104 | 4.57 | 0.85 | 1.00 | 0.000 | KEGG |
| D-Glutamine and D-glutamate metabolism | 5 | 1 | 0.0553 | 2.89 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.000 | KEGG |
| Arachidonic acid metabolism | 36 | 2 | 0.0602 | 2.81 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.326 | KEGG |
| Taurine and hypotaurine metabolism | 8 | 1 | 0.0870 | 2.44 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.000 | KEGG |
| Ether lipid metabolism | 13 | 1 | 0.1378 | 1.98 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.000 | KEGG |
| Pentose phosphate pathway | 19 | 1 | 0.1952 | 1.63 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.047 | KEGG |
| Glutathione metabolism | 26 | 1 | 0.2576 | 1.36 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.078 | KEGG |
| Glycerophospholipid metabolism | 30 | 1 | 0.2912 | 1.23 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.044 | KEGG |
| Primary bile acid biosynthesis | 46 | 1 | 0.4119 | 0.89 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.030 | KEGG |
“Total” is the total number of differential metabolites species in the pathway; “hits” is the actually matched number from the user differential biomarkers; the raw p is the original p calculated from the enrichment analysis; the “Holm p” is the p value adjusted by Holm−Bonferroni method; “impact” is the pathway impact value calculated from pathway topology analysis.
Figure 5Metabolite pathway analysis with Pearson correlation coefficient only edges corresponding to correlations whose similarity was less than 0.5 are shown. (A) Metabolite pathway analysis between M3 and M20. (B) Metabolite pathway analysis between M20 and F20. The upward adjustment is red; the downward adjustment is green. The edges red solid line represents positive correlation, and the green solid line represents negative correlation. The line between metabolism–protein and protein–protein is indicated by a black dotted line.
Figure 6Secretion levels of TNF-α, IL-6, 5-LOX, and COX-2 and relative mRNA expression in liver.All data were expressed as the means ± SD. **P < 0.01 compared to model 3 group; ▲P < 0.05, ▲▲P < 0.01 compared to model 20 group.