| Literature DB >> 31623374 |
Zoe Boyer-Diaz1, Joan Carles Domingo2, Estefanía De Gregorio3, Nicolò Manicardi4, Peio Aristu-Zabalza5, Begoña Cordobilla6, Laia Abad-Jordà7, Martí Ortega-Ribera7, Anabel Fernández-Iglesias8,9, Montserrat Marí10, Jaime Bosch11,12,13, Jordi Gracia-Sancho14,15,16,17.
Abstract
Inflammation and oxidative stress play a key role in the pathophysiology of advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD) and portal hypertension (PH). Considering the current lack of effective treatments, we evaluated an anti-inflammatory and antioxidant nutraceutical rich in docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) as a possible therapy for ACLD. We investigated the effects of two-week DHA supplementation (500 mg/kg) on hepatic fatty acids, PH, oxidative stress, inflammation, and hepatic stellate cell (HSC) phenotype in rats with ACLD. Additionally, the effects of DHA were evaluated in murine macrophages and human HSC. In contrast to vehicle-treated animals, cirrhotic rats receiving DHA reestablished a healthy hepatic fatty acid profile, which was associated with an improvement in PH. The mechanisms underlying this hemodynamic improvement included a reduction in oxidative stress and inflammation, as well as a marked HSC deactivation, confirmed in human HSC. Experiments with cultured macrophages showed that treatment with DHA protects against pro-inflammatory insults. The present preclinical study demonstrates that a nutraceutical rich in DHA significantly improves PH in chronic liver disease mainly by suppressing inflammation and oxidative stress-driven HSC activation, encouraging its evaluation as a new treatment for PH and cirrhosis.Entities:
Keywords: DHA; hepatic hemodynamics; liver cirrhosis; liver fibrosis; omega-3
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31623374 PMCID: PMC6835927 DOI: 10.3390/nu11102358
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Effects of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) administration on hepatic fatty acid composition in healthy and cirrhotic rats.
| Fatty Acid | Healthy Vehicle | Healthy DHA | Cirrhotic Vehicle | Cirrhotic DHA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| MA (14:0) | 0.39 ± 0.04 | 0.31 ± 0.03 | 0.43 ± 0.01 | 0.30 ± 0.02 ** |
| PA (C16:0) | 21.09 ± 0.31 | 21.48 ± 0.67 | 23.28 ± 0.41 ### | 24.58 ± 0.39 |
| SA (C18:0) | 17.82 ± 0.26 | 17.40 ± 0.72 | 14.43 ± 0.88### | 16.02 ± 0.54 |
|
| ||||
| POA (C16:1 | 1.74 ± 0.17 | 1.68 ± 0.22 | 2.64 ± 0.30 | 1.74 ± 2.13 * |
| OA (C18:1 | 8.40 ± 0.54 | 7.33 ± 0.40 | 15.70 ± 1.32 ### | 8.87 ± 0.22 *** |
| VAC (C18:1 | 3.77 ± 0.29 | 3.03 ± 0.10 | 3.36 ± 0.16 | 2.85 ± 0.16 |
| EIA (C20:1 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.12 ± 0.01 |
| NA (C24:1 | 0.27 ± 0.02 | 0.24 ± 0.01 | 0.29 ± 0.03 | 0.34 ± 0.03 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| ALA (C18:3 | 0.40 ± 0.04 | 0.43 ± 0.05 | 0.40 ± 0.03 | 0.25 ± 0.02 *** |
| ETE (C20:3 | 0.30 ± 0,02 | 0.22 ± 0.02 * | 0.28 ± 0.02 | 0.13 ± 0.02 ** |
| EPA (C20:5 | 0.18 ± 0.03 | 1.4 ± 0.26 ** | 0.11 ± 0.02 | 1.25 ± 0.08 *** |
| DPA (C22:5 | 0.59 ± 0.03 | 1.41 ± 0.16 ** | 0.64 ± 0.03 | 1.42 ± 0.08 *** |
| DHA (C22:6 | 5.85 ± 0.48 | 9.82 ± 0.52 ** | 1.97 ± 0.25 ### | 11.70 ± 0.45 *** |
|
| ||||
| LA (C18:2 | 17.63 ± 0.54 | 18.37 ± 0.31 | 18.13 ± 0.42 | 17.32 ± 0.29 |
| GLA (C18:3 | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 0.11 ± 0.01 * | 0.32 ± 0.02 | 0.08 ± 0.01 *** |
| HGLA (C20:3 | 0.52 ± 0.05 | 0.84 ± 0.05 *** | 0.,32 ± 0.02 | 0.82 ± 0.05 *** |
| AA (C20:4 | 18.59 ± 0.32 | 14.76 ± 0.72 *** | 14.86 ± 0.90 ### | 10.25 ± 0.34 *** |
| DTA (C22:4 | 0.49 ± 0.02 | 0.20 ± 0.02 *** | 0.73 ± 0.07 | 0.21 ± 0.01 *** |
| DPA (C22:5 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 1.07 ± 0.18 | 0.24 ± 0.02 *** |
|
| 40.26 ± 0.54 | 40.11 ± 0.90 | 39.01 ± 0.53 | 42.07 ± 0.35 *** |
|
| 14.31 ± 0.93 | 12.34 ± 0.56 | 22.11 ± 1.55 ### | 13.93 ± 0.36 *** |
|
| 45.44 ± 0.97 | 47.50 ± 0.74 | 38.88 ± 1.08 ### | 43.99 ± 0.37 *** |
|
| 7.32 ± 0.54 | 12.94 ± 0.86 *** | 3.11 ± 0.24 ### | 14.74 ± 0.47 *** |
|
| 38.11 ± 0.76 | 34.55 ± 0.65 *** | 35.77 ± 0.85 | 29.26 ± 0.33 *** |
Results represent percentage (%) of total fatty acids and are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. n = 5 for healthy animals and n = 11 for cirrhotic animals. # <0.05; ## <0.01; ### <0.001 vs. healthy vehicle group and * <0.05; ** <0.01; *** <0.001 vs. corresponding group receiving vehicle. AA, arachidonic acid; ALA, alpha linolenic acid; DHA, docosahexaenoic acid; DPA, docosapentaenoic acid; DTA, docosatetraenoic acid; EIA, eicosenoic acid; EPA, eicosapentaenoic acid; ERA, erucic acid; ETE, eicosatrienoic acid; FA, fatty acid; GLA, gamma linoleic acid; HGLA, homogamma linolenic acid; LA, linoleic acid; MA, myristic acid; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acid; NA, nervonic acid; OA, oleic acid; PA, palmitic acid; POA, palmitoleic acid; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acid; SA, stearic acid; SFA, saturated fatty acid; VAC, vaccenic acid.
Effects of DHA administration on hepatic fatty acid ratios in healthy and cirrhotic rats.
| Ratios | Healthy | Healthy | Cirrhotic | Cirrhotic |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2.86 ± 0.44 | 3.27 ± 0.48 | 1.81 ± 0.34 ### | 3.04 ± 0.30 *** |
|
| 0.32 ± 0.06 | 0.26 ± 0.03 | 0.58 ± 0.13 ## | 0.32 ± 0.03 *** |
|
| 5.32 ± 0.88 | 2.72 ± 0.46 ** | 11.72 ± 1.56 ### | 2.01 ± 0.26 *** |
|
| 6.03 ± 1.09 | 11.15 ± 1.64 *** | 2.08 ± 0.57 ### | 12.95 ± 1.49 *** |
|
| 108.3 ± 25.2 | 12.74 ± 5.69 *** | 156.0 ± 24.2 ### | 8.65 ± 2.35 *** |
|
| 3.26 ± 0.58 | 1.50 ± 0.33 *** | 7.87 ± 1.41 ### | 0.90 ± 0.18 *** |
|
| 36.99 ± 3.95 | 17.39 ± 1.152 *** | 47.55 ± 2.12 | 12.09 ± 0.85 *** |
|
| 2.99 ± 0.31 | 4.58 ± 0.27 | 1.76 ± 0.10 | 4.76 ± 0.31 *** |
|
| 20.72 ± 1.81 | 22.98 ± 2.79 | 16.80 ± 1.33 | 19.74 ± 1.51 |
|
| 8.24 ± 0.81 | 7.73 ± 0.78 | 11.30 ± 1.17 | 7.08 ± 0.49 |
|
| 47.32 ± 3.70 | 42.72 ± 3.76 | 111.6 ± 14.1 ### | 56.02 ± 2.63 *** |
|
| 0.95 ± 0.02 | 1.29 ± 0.08 | 1.24 ± 0.09 | 1.71 ± 0.08 |
|
| 0.85 ± 0.01 | 0.81 ± 0.04 | 0.62 ± 0.05 # | 0.66 ± 0.03 |
|
| 2.82 ± 0.12 | 3.39 ± 0.20 | 2.53 ± 0.22 | 3.01 ± 0.12 |
|
| 7.77 ± 0.73 | 7.28 ± 0.58 | 3.90 ± 0.35 # | 5.73 ± 0.35 |
|
| 2.22 ± 0,18 | 1.92 ± 0.23 | 1.34 ± 0.17 | 1.67 ± 0.11 ** |
Results are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. n = 5 for healthy animals and n = 11 for cirrhotic animals. # <0.05; ## <0.01; ## <0.001 vs. healthy vehicle group and * <0.05; ** <0.01; *** <0.001 vs. corresponding group receiving vehicle. AA, arachidonic acid; DHA, docosahexaenoic acid; EPA, eicosapentaenoic acid; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acid; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acid; SFA, saturated fatty acid.
Effects of DHA administration on hepatic and systemic hemodynamics and serum markers in a rat model of advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD).
| Parameter | Vehicle | DHA | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 13.91 ± 0.60 | 12.05 ± 0.57 | 0.03 |
|
| 15.66 ± 2.54 | 18.21 ± 2.31 | >0.20 |
|
| 1.05 ± 0.15 | 0.79 ± 0.11 | 0.16 |
|
| 8.37 ± 0.91 | 10.03 ± 1.45 | >0.20 |
|
| 116.23 ± 5.40 | 99.92 ± 6.25 | 0.1 |
|
| 415 ± 13 | 383 ± 17 | 0.15 |
|
| 155.8 ± 17.08 | 115.8 ± 9.05 | 0.04 |
|
| 31.2 ± 0.32 | 30.27 ± 0.53 | >0.20 |
Results are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. n = 11 and n = 14, respectively, for vehicle and DHA. PP, portal pressure; MAP, mean arterial pressure; PBF, portal blood flow; IHVR, intrahepatic vascular resistance; SMABF, superior mesenteric arterial blood flow; HR, heart rate; AST, aspartate aminotransferase.
Figure 1Effects of DHA on oxidative stress and inflammation in a rat model of ACLD. (A) Representative images of dihydroethidium staining in liver tissue sections from cirrhotic rats treated with DHA or vehicle (left—scale bar represents 200 μm), and corresponding quantification of superoxide (O2−) levels (right). (B) Representative images of oil red O staining of liver tissue cryosections from cirrhotic rats treated with DHA or vehicle (left—scale bar represents 100 μm), and corresponding quantification (right). (C) Representative images of CD68 immunofluorescence in liver tissue sections from cirrhotic rats treated with DHA or vehicle (left—scale bar represents 200 μm; CD68 positive cells in red and nuclei in blue), and corresponding quantification (right). (D) Relative mRNA and (E) protein expression of key interleukins in total liver tissue from cirrhotic rats treated with DHA or vehicle, normalized to GAPDH. Results are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 vs. vehicle. n = 3 per group (A), n = 11 per group (B, C), and n = 10 per group (D,E).
Figure 2Effects of DHA on macrophage activity. (A) p65-NFκB (nuclear factor kappa B) nuclear protein expression in murine macrophages from the RAW264.7 cell line treated with DHA (10 µM) or vehicle and undergoing no challenge, lipopolysaccharide (LPS) challenge or PA challenge. Lamin A/C expression is shown as a loading control. (B) Interleukin 6 (IL-6) and (C) tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) relative mRNA expression in murine macrophages from the RAW264.7 cell line treated with DHA or vehicle and undergoing no challenge, LPS challenge or palmitic acid (PA) challenge, normalized to β-actin. (D) IL-6, (E) TNFα and (F) Arg1 relative mRNA expression in primary murine peritoneal macrophages treated with DHA (7.5 µM) or vehicle and undergoing no challenge, LPS challenge or TNFα challenge, normalized to β-actin. Results are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 vs. vehicle without challenge; † p < 0.05 and †† p < 0.01 vs. vehicle under the same challenge conditions. n = 4 per group (B,C), and n = 3 per group (D–F).
Figure 3Effects of DHA on hepatic stellate cell (HSC) phenotype and fibrosis. (A) α-SMA and collagen-1α1 relative mRNA expression in total liver tissue from cirrhotic rats treated with DHA or vehicle, normalized to GAPDH. (B) α-SMA and collagen-1α1 relative protein expression in total liver tissue from cirrhotic rats treated with DHA or vehicle, normalized to GAPDH. (C) Representative images of Sirius Red staining of liver tissue sections from cirrhotic rats treated with DHA or vehicle (left—scale bar represents 500 μm), and corresponding quantification (right). (D) α-SMA, TGFβR and PDGFβR relative protein expression in LX-2 HSCs treated with DHA (10 and 50 µM) or vehicle, normalized to GAPDH. Results are expressed as mean ± S.E.M. * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 vs. vehicle. n = 10 per group (A–C), and n = 3 per group (D).