| Literature DB >> 31731665 |
Elizabeth S Neil1, John N McGinley1, Vanessa K Fitzgerald1, Corey A Lauck1, Jeremy A Tabke1, Madyson R Streeter-McDonald1, Linxing Yao2, Corey D Broeckling2, Tiffany L Weir3, Michelle T Foster3, Henry J Thompson1.
Abstract
Clinical studies indicate that eating common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L., plays a role in body weight regulation but mechanisms have yet to be elucidated. Here, we investigated the anti-obesogenic activity of white kidney bean in a mouse model of dietary-induced obesity. Bean consumption reduced the accumulation of adipose tissue in male and female C57BL6 mice. The anti-obesogenic effect of white kidney bean was not due to alterations in energy intake, energy excreted in the feces, or feed efficiency ratio. While bean consumption increased the mass of the intestine, no marked differences were consistently observed in crypt height, mucin content of goblet cells, proliferation index or zone of proliferation. However, significantly higher concentrations of total bacteria and of Akkermansia muciniphila were detected in cecal content of bean-fed mice, and the ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes was reduced. Bile acid content was higher in the ileum of bean-fed mice, but transcript levels of farnesoid X receptor were not significantly affected. Whether changes in bile-acid-mediated cell signaling play a role in bean-related differences in fat accumulation and/or overall metabolic health requires further investigation.Entities:
Keywords: Akkermansia muciniphila; Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes ratio; Phaseolus vulgaris; adiposity; bile acids; farnesoid X receptor; gut health; obesity; white kidney bean
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31731665 PMCID: PMC6893514 DOI: 10.3390/nu11112780
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Composition of Experimental Diets.
| Ingredient | Low Fat Control Diet 1 | High Fat Control Diet 1 | Cooked, Whole White Kidney Bean 1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Solka-Floc | 4.7 | 6.5 | 0.0 |
| White kidney bean | 0.0 | 0.0 | 40.0 |
| Corn Starch | 29.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Casein (≥85% protein) | 19.0 | 25.8 | 17.1 |
| Cerelose (Dextrose) | 3.3 | 16.2 | 0.0 |
| Sucrose | 33.2 | 8.9 | 0.3 |
| Vitamin mix 2 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| DL-Methionine | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| L-Tryptophan (Sigma T0254-25G) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 |
| Choline bitartrate (41% choline) | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Mineral mix 3 | 4.3 | 5.8 | 5.8 |
| Soybean oil | 2.4 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| Palm Oil | 1.9 | 31.7 | 31.7 |
| TOTAL (g) | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
1 Experimental diets modified from the original diet formulations. The experimental diets used 2 Dyets #310025 AIN-93G vitamin mix and 3 Dyets #210025 AIN-93G mineral mix.
Figure 1Experiment 1 flow chart.
qPCR primers.
|
|
|
|
| 18S FWD | 5′- ATTGGAGCTGGAATTACCGC -3′ | [ |
| 18S REV | 5′- CGGCTACCACATCCAAGGAA -3′ | [ |
| FXR FWD | 5′- TGGGCTCCGAATCCTCTTAGA -3′ | [ |
| FXR REV | 5′- TGGTCCTCAAATAAGATCCTTGG -3′ | [ |
| SHP FWD | 5′- TCTGCAGGTCGTCCGACTATTC -3′ | [ |
| SHP REV | 5′- AGGCAGTGGCTGTGAGATGC -3′ | [ |
| FGF15 FWD | 5′- GCCATCAAGGACGTCAGCA -3′ | [ |
| FGF15 REV | 5′- CTTCCTCCGAGTAGCGAATCAG -3′ | [ |
|
|
|
|
| 16S (926) FWD | 5′- AAA CTC AAA KGA ATT GAC GG -3′ | [ |
| 16S (1062) REV | 5′- CTC ACR RCA CGA GCT GAC -3′ | [ |
| 5′- CAG CAC GTG AAG GTG GGG AC -3′ | [ | |
| 5′- CCT TGC GGT TGG CTT CAG AT -3′ | [ | |
| Bacteroidetes FWD | 5′- AAA CTC AAA KGA ATT GAC GG -3′ | [ |
| Bacteroidetes REV | 5′- GGT AAG GTT CCT CGC GCT AT -3′ | [ |
| Firmicutes (928) FWD | 5′- TGA AAC TYA AGG AAT TGA CG -3′ | [ |
| Firmicutes (1040) REV | 5′- ACC ATG CAC CAC CTG TC -3′ | [ |
Forward: FWD; Reverse: REV; farnesoid X receptor: FXR; small heterodimer partner: SHP; fibroblast growth factor 15: FGF15.
Figure 2Effect of bean consumption on body weight and adiposity (Experiment 1). (A) final body weight; (B) subcutaneous fat; (C) visceral (mesenteric) fat; Units are g or mg of mass divided by length of tibia in mm. Factorial ANOVA with time on diet (TOD) as a covariate. Final body weight: sex p = 0.0012, diet p < 0.0001, interaction p = 0.6952, TOD, not significant (ns); Subcutaneous fat: sex p < 0.0001, diet p < 0.0001, interaction p = 0.6186, TOD, ns; Visceral (mesenteric) fat: sex p = 0.0417, diet p = 0.0058, interaction p = 0.7208, TOD, ns; Post hoc comparisons, * different relative to high-fat diet within gender (p ≤ 0.05).
Effect of white kidney bean on food efficiency ratio and fecal energy (Experiment 2).
| Diet 1 | Total Diet Eaten | Total Weight Gained | Feed Efficiency Ratio | Total Feces Excreted | Fecal Energy Concentration | Total Fecal Energy/day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 154.5 ± 6.6 | 3.5 ± 1.8 | 0.023 ± 0.012 | 256.9 ± 18.4 | 3.77 ± 0.11 | 0.97 ± 0.09 |
| Bean | 167.3 ± 16.9 | 2.8 ± 1.7 | 0.016 ± 0.009 | 273.8 ± 33.7 | 3.77 ± 0.05 | 1.03 ± 0.13 |
| 0.0650 | 0.4467 | 0.2412 | 0.2350 | 0.9987 | 0.2601 |
1 Values are means ± SD; Control n = 8, Bean n = 8.
Effect of white kidney bean on body weight and adiposity (Experiment 2).
| Diet 1 | Final Body Weight | Body Mass Index 2 | Subcutaneous Fat Mass 3 | Sum Visceral Fat Mass 4 | Total Fat Mass 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 38.2 ± 3.3 | 2.2 ± 0.2 | 64.1 ± 9.1 | 189.1 ± 30.3 | 253.2 ± 38.3 |
| Bean | 38.4 ± 3.4 | 2.2 ± 0.2 | 47.6 ± 12.2 | 172.5 ± 33.3 | 220.1 ± 44.3 |
| 0.9182 | 0.9486 | 0.0085 | 0.3138 | 0.1323 |
1 Values are means ± SD. 2 Units are g or mg mass divided by length of tibia in mm; 3 Inguinal fat; 4 Sum total of mesenteric fat, retroperitoneal fat and epididymal fat depots. 5 Sum total of inguinal subcutaneous and sum visceral fat depots; Control n = 8, Bean n = 8.
Figure 3Representative H&E stained sections of fat depots (Experiment 2). (A) HF Control subcutaneous fat; (B) Bean subcutaneous fat; (C) HF Control retroperitoneal fat; (D) Bean retroperitoneal fat; (E) HF Control epididymal fat; (F) Bean epididymal fat; (G) Adipocyte morphometry; ANOVA: subcutaneous adipocyte area p = 0.0094, retroperitoneal adipocyte area p = 0.0001, epididymal adipocyte area p = 0.0004; * different relative to control diet (p ≤ 0.05); all images 100 × magnification, bars = 100 µM; HF Control n = 8, Bean n = 8; HF: high fat.
Figure 4Effects of paired-feeding of white kidney bean on intestinal mass and cecal bacterial populations (Experiment 2). (A) Intestinal weights; (B) Cecal bacteria populations; ANOVA: Stomach Small Intestine p = 0.0343, Cecum p < 0.0001, Colon p = 0.0027, Total p = 0.0003; 16S Ct p = 0.0001, A. muciniphila ∆Ct p < 0.0001, Firmicutes ∆Ct p = 0.0004, Bacteroidetes ∆Ct p = 0.0001; * different relative to HF control diet (p ≤ 0.05); Control n = 8, Bean n = 8; FC: fold change; HF: high fat.
Effect of feeding of white kidney bean on intestinal morphometry (Experiment 2).
| Measurement 1. | Tissue | HF Control | Bean | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crypt height (µm2) | Ileum | 252.1 ± 41.1 | 274.5 ± 29.5 | 0.2916 |
| Ascending colon | 92.2 ± 9.3 | 82.2 ± 11.7 | 0.1141 | |
| Transverse colon | 182.2 ± 23.7 | 214.1 ± 13.1 | 0.0136 | |
| Descending colon | 135.9 ± 9.6 | 153.9 ± 16.6 | 0.0324 | |
| Alcian blue area (µm2) | Ileum | 1170.5 ± 557.5 | 1105.3 ± 280.1 | 0.8008 |
| Ascending colon | 1335.5 ± 248.7 | 1215.1 ± 312.6 | 0.4549 | |
| Transverse colon | 4344.1± 1274.9 | 5711.3 ± 1.518.2 | 0.1049 | |
| Descending colon | 1731.4 ± 360.6 | 1508.1 ± 263.1 | 0.2358 | |
| Ki-67 (%) 2 | Ileum | 26.3 ± 5.8 | 26.4 ± 4.8 | 0.9673 |
| Ascending colon | 19.4 ± 3.4 | 21.7 ± 3.2 | 0.2451 | |
| Transverse colon | 19.1 ± 5.9 | 22.9 ± 3.4 | 0.1908 | |
| Descending colon | 17.6 ± 2.0 | 17.5 ± 1.3 | 0.8658 |
1 Values are means ± SD; 2 The percentage of Ki-67 positive cells were measured along the entire length of each crypt; High fat (HF) control n = 7, Bean n = 6.