| Literature DB >> 31639005 |
Rui-Xu Yang1, Qin Pan1, Xiao-Lin Liu1, Da Zhou1, Feng-Zhi Xin1, Ze-Hua Zhao1, Rui-Nan Zhang1, Jing Zeng1, Liang Qiao2, Chun-Xiu Hu3, Guo-Wang Xu3, Jian-Gao Fan4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ceramide plays pathogenic roles in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) via multiple mechanisms, and as such inhibition of ceramide de novo synthesis in the liver may be of therapeutically beneficial in patients with NAFLD. In this study, we aimed to explore whether inhibition of ceramide signaling by myriocin is beneficial in animal model of NAFLD via regulating autophagy.Entities:
Keywords: Autophagy; Ceramides; High fat diet; Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31639005 PMCID: PMC6805575 DOI: 10.1186/s12944-019-1118-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lipids Health Dis ISSN: 1476-511X Impact factor: 3.876
Fig. 1The workflow of NASH model building and myriocin intervention
Effects of myriocin on body weight and serum biochemical indicators
| Control | HFD | HFD + myriocin | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight | 566.7 ± 8.1 | 661.7 ± 15.9** | 614.0 ± 14.2# |
| ALP | 7.70 ± 0.68 | 8.40 ± 0.73 | 6.90 ± 0.35 |
| ALT | 37.40 ± 1.89 | 114.30 ± 26.71* | 32.70 ± 3.08# |
| AST | 92.10 ± 5.55 | 160.10 ± 16.79** | 87.80 ± 4.02## |
| TB | 1.01 ± 0.06 | 1.14 ± 0.22 | 0.78 ± 0.05 |
| DB | 0.65 ± 0.02 | 0.52 ± 0.05* | 0.48 ± 0.04 |
| HDL | 0.33 ± 0.01 | 0.25 ± 0.01** | 0.34 ± 0.03# |
| LDL | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.42 ± 0.04** | 0.22 ± 0.02## |
| TC | 0.71 ± 0.08 | 1.28 ± 0.12** | 0.81 ± 0.07## |
| TG | 1.59 ± 0.05 | 2.36 ± 0.18** | 2.09 ± 0.13 |
| FPG | 8.82 ± 0.39 | 8.51 ± 0.53 | 7.86 ± 0.30 |
Notes: Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. *: P<0.05, **: P<0.01 between HFD and control group; #: P<0.05, ##: P<0.01 between HFD and HFD + myriocin group
Fig. 2Inhibition of ceramide synthesis by myriocin alleviates NASH severity in the liver of HFD fed rats. a The gross appearance, H&E and Oil red O staining of liver. b Body weight of experimental rats; c-d Liver index and fat index at 16 weeks. e TG level in liver issues. f-h Histology score of steatosis, lobular inflammation and ballooning. Data represents the mean ± SEM. (n = 10 per group); *: P < 0.05
Fig. 3Effect of myriocin on the de novo lipogenesis, fatty acid metabolism, triglyceride transportation and autophagy in the livers of HFD fed rats. a Expression of genes involved in fatty acid transport and oxidation in rat livers. b Expression of genes involved in de novo lipogenesis in rat livers. c Autophagy markers (LC-3, p62) in rat livers were examined by Western blot analysis
Fig. 4Effect of myriocin in HepG2 cells exposed to PA and OA. a TG content (μmol/g protein) in HepG2 cells co-cultured with PA + OA in the presence of myriocin (10 μM). b Oil Red O staining of HepG2 cells co-cultured with FFAs and myriocin (10 μM). c Expression of autophagy markers (LC-3, p62) was examined by Western blot in HepG2 cells co-cultured with FFAs and various concentrations of myriocin (0, 10, and 25 μM). d-e Quantitative analysis of LC-3 II/I ratio and p62/Actin ratio in c
General characteristics of the human study population
| Subgroup | Control | NAFL | NASH | CHB without NASH | CHB with NASH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | 23 | 12 | 30 | 25 | 14 |
| Age | 39.91 ± 1.19 | 42.33 ± 3.57 | 38.20 ± 2.66 | 36.76 ± 2.59 | 39.00 ± 3.75 |
| Male (%) | 14 (60.87%) | 8 (66.67%) | 18 (60.00%) | 16 (64.00%) | 9 (64.29%) |
| Waistline | 80.96 ± 1.32 | 89.17 ± 1.19** | 92.34 ± 1.43** | 80.38 ± 3.28 | 90.00 ± 1.68** |
| BMI | 23.80 ± 0.52 | 26.74 ± 0.85** | 27.73 ± 0.61** | 22.61 ± 0.64 | 26.25 ± 0.53** |
| TB | 15.63 ± 0.79 | 13.48 ± 1.46 | 19.06 ± 3.32 | 25.30 ± 5.00 | 12.98 ± 0.85 |
| DB | 2.53 ± 0.19 | 4.86 ± 0.69** | 9.43 ± 3.03* | 11.15 ± 3.63* | 3.97 ± 0.40** |
| ALP | 69.30 ± 3.87 | 78.98 ± 9.89 | 95.38 ± 7.60** | 84.73 ± 8.66 | 96.01 ± 15.22* |
| γ-GT | 25.47 ± 4.51 | 31.76 ± 4.22 | 157.26 ± 56.40* | 82.35 ± 20.69* | 46.39 ± 9.02 |
| ALT | 24.17 ± 2.23 | 43.94 ± 5.70** | 99.55 ± 11.87** | 113.91 ± 30.18** | 59.13 ± 9.79** |
| AST | 21.17 ± 0.93 | 24.13 ± 1.54 | 60.32 ± 6.20** | 60.93 ± 12.75** | 41.73 ± 7.23** |
| TC | 4.60 ± 0.18 | 4.38 ± 0.26 | 4.84 ± 0.19 | 3.75 ± 0.17** | 5.43 ± 0.30* |
| TG | 1.37 ± 0.16 | 1.51 ± 0.24 | 2.05 ± 0.22* | 1.25 ± 0.15 | 2.70 ± 0.83* |
| HDL | 1.25 ± 0.04 | 1.30 ± 0.07 | 1.17 ± 0.06 | 1.12 ± 0.06 | 1.31 ± 0.08 |
| LDL | 2.83 ± 0.15 | 2.78 ± 0.09 | 2.89 ± 0.13 | 2.32 ± 0.12* | 2.93 ± 0.22 |
| FPG | 5.00 ± 0.14 | 6.02 ± 0.57* | 5.67 ± 0.30 | 4.83 ± 0.21 | 6.31 ± 0.84 |
| Stiffness | 4.35 ± 0.20 | 6.68 ± 0.97* | 12.20 ± 2.50** | 10.13 ± 1.44** | 7.64 ± 0.93** |
| CAP | 222.83 ± 7.98 | 280.42 ± 10.56** | 314.97 ± 9.27** | 241.43 ± 12.84 | 274.93 ± 12.38** |
Notes: Data are expressed as mean ± SEM
*:P < 0.05, **: P <0.01 vs control group
Fig. 5Ceramides were significantly elevated in NASH subjects. a Serum sphingolipids in normal subjects and patients with NAFL, NASH, CHB with or without NASH. b Analysis of specific ceramide species in five subgroups. c analysis of serum sphingolipids in control, non-NASH subjects (NAFL and CHB without NASH) and NASH subjects (NASH and CHB with NASH). d-h Comparison of specific ceramide species between the non-NASH subjects (NAFL and CHB without NASH) and the NASH subjects (NASH and CHB with NASH)