| Literature DB >> 31739579 |
Irene Pradas1, Mariona Jové1, Rosanna Cabré1, Victoria Ayala1, Natalia Mota-Martorell1, Reinald Pamplona1.
Abstract
Methionine restriction (MetR) in animal models extends maximum longevity and seems to promote renoprotection by attenuating kidney injury. MetR has also been proven to affect several metabolic pathways including lipid metabolism. However, there is a lack of studies about the effect of MetR at old age on the kidney metabolome. In view of this, a mass spectrometry-based high-throughput metabolomic and lipidomic profiling was undertaken of renal cortex samples of three groups of male rats-An 8-month-old Adult group, a 26-month-old Aged group, and a MetR group that also comprised of 26-month-old rats but were subjected to an 80% MetR diet for 7 weeks. Additionally, markers of mitochondrial stress and protein oxidative damage were analyzed by mass spectrometry. Our results showed minor changes during aging in the renal cortex metabolome, with less than 59 differential metabolites between the Adult and Aged groups, which represents about 4% of changes in the kidney metabolome. Among the compounds identified are glycerolipids and lipid species derived from arachidonic acid metabolism. MetR at old age preferentially induces lipid changes affecting glycerophospholipids, docosanoids, and eicosanoids. No significant differences were observed between the experimental groups in the markers of mitochondrial stress and tissue protein damage. More than rejuvenation, MetR seems to induce a metabolic reprogramming.Entities:
Keywords: aging; dietary restriction; lipidomics; mass spectrometry; protein damage; renal cortex
Year: 2019 PMID: 31739579 PMCID: PMC6918429 DOI: 10.3390/metabo9110280
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Metabolites ISSN: 2218-1989
Protein damage markers detected and measured by GC-MS in renal cortex.
| Compound | Adult | Aged | MetR |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2-SC | 69.55 ± 7.41 | 68.82 ± 7.80 | 72.58 ± 3.01 |
| GSA | 5232.67 ± 458.74 | 5216.56 ± 178.61 | 5729.25 ± 376.60 |
| AASA | 284.64 ± 37.76 | 276.84 ± 21.80 | 291.35 ± 21.36 |
| CEL | 384.75 ± 42.28 | 322.70 ± 38.12 | 329.99 ± 22.78 |
| MDAL | 228.53 ± 25.27 | 203.44 ± 25.44 | 204.02 ± 43.33 |
| CMC | 103.78 ± 15.42 | 99.27 ± 9.04 | 103.43 ± 7.04 |
| CML | 1595.83 ± 75.82 | 1410.95 ± 123.92 | 1494.69 ± 110.89 |
Values are mean ± SEM of n = 10 specimens per group. Units: µmol/mmol Lys.
Figure 1Lipidomic profile of the renal cortex samples of the Adult and Aged experimental groups. (a) The PCA shows no clear differences between the two experimental groups. (b) Heat map representation of the 528 compounds found in renal cortex. (c) Heat map representation of the hierarchical clustering of the 25 lipid species with lower p-values by a non-parametric t-test. Each line represents an accurate mass ordered by retention time, colored by its abundance intensity, normalized to internal standard, and baselined to median of all samples. The scale from -3 (blue) to 3 (red) represents this normalized abundance in arbitrary units. For all of them, data was acquired in the untargeted lipidomic profiling analysis based on LC-MS with ESI (+).
Details of the identified lipid and metabolite species in rat renal cortex which displayed statistically significant differences between the Adult and Aged groups.
| Compound | Adduct | RT | Log FC | p | Aged vs Adult | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PC(P-34:2) a | M+H+ | 742.5863 | 7.64 | 7.83 | 0.0253 | up |
| MAG(18:0) a* | M+Na+ | 381.2909 | 4.47 | 13.00 | 0.00159 | up |
| DAG(32:2) a* | M+H+-H2O | 529.4520 | 8.41 | 7.02 | 0.0389 | up |
| TAG(50:2) a | M+NH4+ | 848.7654 | 9.55 | 9.02 | 0.0134 | up |
| TAG(56:8) a | M+H+ | 903.7554 | 9.78 | -8.74 | 0.0372 | down |
| TAG(56:5) a | M+NH4+ | 926.8102 | 10.01 | 9.15 | 0.0242 | up |
| Palmitaldehyde b | M+NH4+ | 258.2738 | 9.11 | 7.20 | 0.00955 | up |
| EET methyl ester b | M+H+-H2O | 317.2477 | 11.83 | -6.73 | 0.0473 | down |
| AA methyl ester b | M+NH4+ | 336.2908 | 11.80 | -6.85 | 0.0275 | down |
| Dihomo-PGI2 b | M+H+-H2O | 363.2525 | 11.47 | -9.34 | 0.00401 | down |
| ADP-ribose b | M+H+-H2O | 542.0597 | 0.58 | -9.47 | 0.0423 | down |
| NADH b | M+Na+ | 688.1027 | 5.90 | -8.42 | 0.0418 | down |
a Compounds detected by the lipidomic approach; b Compounds detected by the metabolomic approach. Results were obtained by a non-parametric t-test of the data acquired using an untargeted lipidomic and metabolomic profiling method based on LC-MS with ESI (+). Identities were confirmed by exact mass, retention time and isotopic distribution. * Compounds identified by MS/MS.
Figure 2Lipidomic profiles of the renal cortex samples from animals of the three different experimental groups. (a) The PCA reveals no clear differences between the groups in the lipidomic profile. (b) Heat map representation of the 528 compounds found in renal cortex. (c) Heat map representation of the hierarchical clustering analysis that was performed of the 25 lipid species with lower p-values obtained by a one-way ANOVA with a post hoc Tukey’s test. Each line represents an accurate mass ordered by retention time, colored by its abundance intensity, normalized to internal standard, and baselined to the median of all the samples. The scale from -4 or -2 (blue) to 4 or 2 (red) represents this normalized abundance in arbitrary units. For all of them, data was acquired in the untargeted lipidomic profiling analysis based on LC-MS with ESI (+).
Details of the identified renal lipid species with statistically significant differences between the Adult control, Aged control, and MetR groups.
| Compound | RT | LogFC MetR vs Aged | MetR vs Aged | LogFC MetR vs Adult | MetR vs Adult | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LysoPE(18:3) * | 493.303 | 0.83 | 0.0197 | 10.67 | up | 5.68 | up |
| LysoPI(15:0) | 559.2942 | 2.97 | 0.0234 | -9.06 | down | -0.03 | down |
| PA(P-30:1) | 585.4237 | 6.41 | 0.00000662 | 14.26 | up | 12.35 | up |
| PC(20:0) | 604.3236 | 2.13 | 0.0128 | 10.73 | up | 7.02 | up |
| PC(38:6) * | 823.5946 | 5.58 | 0.00246 | 8.39 | up | 0.07 | up |
| PC(42:2) | 870.688 | 7.40 | 0.0478 | -7.80 | down | -7.05 | down |
| PC(P-38:2) | 820.6198 | 8.70 | 0.00248 | -7.57 | down | -0.07 | down |
| PG(32:1) | 721.5002 | 7.72 | 0.0397 | 0.05 | up | -0.12 | down |
| PS(P-29:0) | 642.453 | 5.67 | 0.03 | -5.80 | down | 1.62 | up |
| GlcAβ-Cer(d36:1) | 742.5863 | 7.64 | 0.002 | -10.15 | down | -1.76 | down |
| SM(d30:0) * | 666.5661 | 8.41 | 0.02 | 9.08 | up | 7.20 | up |
| MAG(20:3) | 381.2906 | 4.48 | 0.00482 | -6.16 | down | 8.82 | up |
| DAG(32:2) * | 529.4533 | 8.41 | 0.0173 | 0.61 | up | 7.37 | up |
| TAG(40:2) | 848.7654 | 9.56 | 0.00188 | -10.11 | down | 1.85 | up |
| TAG(61:6) | 941.8264 | 9.94 | 0.0235 | 11.11 | up | 1.74 | up |
The results were obtained by a one-way ANOVA with a post hoc Tukey’s test of the data acquired using an untargeted lipidomic profiling method based on LC-MS with ESI (+). The identities were confirmed by exact mass, retention time, and isotopic distribution. * Compounds identified by MS/MS.
Details of the identified renal metabolite species with statistically significant differences between the Adult control, Aged control, and MetR groups.
| Compound | RT | LogFC MetR vs Aged | MetR vs Aged | LogFC MetR vs Adult | MetR vs Adult | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Methylcytidine | 258.0986 | 0.48 | 0.0224 | -2.27 | down | 0.69 | up |
| ADP-ribose | 542.0597 | 0.58 | 0.0036 | -0.02 | down | -2.36 | down |
| Inosine | 269.0814 | 0.67 | 0.0291 | 0.01 | up | -0.12 | down |
| Glutathione disulfide | 613.1499 | 0.46 | 0.0169 | -2.46 | down | -0.51 | down |
| Angiotensin (1-7) | 937.4213 | 11.50 | 0.0375 | 2.29 | up | 2.58 | up |
| epoxyHDHA | 399.2466 | 10.04 | 0.0183 | 2.62 | up | 0.48 | up |
| 10,11-DiHDPE | 363.2511 | 11.47 | 0.0236 | 2.35 | up | 0.05 | up |
| 20-carboxy-LTB4 | 367.2129 | 7.33 | 0.0143 | -0.11 | down | 0.00 | down |
| 6-keto PGE1 | 369.2334 | 6.89 | 0.0192 | -2.37 | down | -0.51 | down |
| 5β-Cholestane-3α,7α-diol | 427.3541 | 13.89 | 0.0242 | -0.07 | down | 1.98 | up |
| Glycocholic Acid | 466.3105 | 8.93 | 0.000176 | 2.89 | up | 2.85 | up |
| Dodecenoyl-CoA | 912.2679 | 13.69 | 0.0435 | -1.18 | down | 1.03 | up |
| Formyl-CoA | 778.0916 | 10.56 | 0.0215 | 0.55 | up | -1.75 | down |
| Palmitaldehyde | 258.2745 | 9.11 | 0.00461 | 0.01 | up | 2.69 | up |
| Propionylcarnitine | 235.1639 | 9.19 | 0.0278 | 0.00 | up | 2.36 | up |
The results were obtained by a one-way ANOVA with a post hoc Tukey’s test of the data acquired using an untargeted metabolomic profiling method based on LC-MS with ESI (+). The identities were confirmed by exact mass, retention time, and isotopic distribution.