| Literature DB >> 31920700 |
William Massimino1, Stéphane Davail1, Marie-Dominique Bernadet2, Tracy Pioche1, Annabelle Tavernier1, Karine Ricaud1, Karine Gontier1, Cécile Bonnefont3, Hélène Manse3, Mireille Morisson3, Benoit Fauconneau1, Anne Collin4, Stéphane Panserat1, Marianne Houssier1.
Abstract
Animal studies have shown that very early life events may have programing effects on adult metabolism and health. In this study, we aim, for the first, time to elucidate the effects of embryonic thermal manipulation (TM) on the performance of overfed mule ducks, in particular for the production of foie gras (fatty liver). We designed three embryonic TMs with different protocols for increasing the incubation temperature during the second part of embryogenesis, to determine whether hepatic metabolism could be "programed" to improve its fattening response to overfeeding at the age of three months. Initial results confirm that an increase in the incubation temperature leads to faster development (observed for all treated groups compared to the control group), and a decrease in the body surface temperature at birth. Thereafter, in a very innovative way, we showed that the three TM conditions specifically increased liver weights, as well as liver lipid content after overfeeding compared to the non-TM control group. These results demonstrate that embryonic TM effectively "programs" the metabolic response to the challenge of force-feeding, resulting in increased hepatic steatosis. Finally, our goal of improving foie gras production has been achieved with three different embryonic thermal stimuli, demonstrating the high reproducibility of the method. However, this repeatability was also perceptible in the adverse effects observed on two groups treated with exactly the same cumulative temperature rise leading to a reduction in hatchability (75 and 76% vs. 82% in control), in addition to an increase in the melting rate after cooking. These results suggest that embryonic thermal programing could be an innovative and inexpensive technique for improving foie gras production, although the specific protocol (duration, level or period of temperature increase), remains to be elucidated in order to avoid adverse effects.Entities:
Keywords: embryonic thermal programing; foie gras; lipogenesis; liver fattening; liver steatosis; mule ducks
Year: 2019 PMID: 31920700 PMCID: PMC6920244 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01495
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
FIGURE 1Experimental design. Control eggs were incubated in standard conditions [37.6°C and 47% relative humidity (RH)]. Thermal manipulation (TM) conditions correspond to 38.6°C 16 h/d or 38.6°C 24 h/d or 39.1°C 16 h/d with 63% RH from embryonic day E13–E27.
FIGURE 2Hatching data. (A–C) Percentage of total hatchability (A), sex ratio (B), and E29 hatched eggs (C) of mule eggs in control condition, or thermic manipulated conditions. (D,E) Mean Body weight (D) and body surface temperature (E) of male mule duckling 1 day after hatching in control (white bar), +1°C 16 h/24 h (clear gray bar), +1°C 24 h/24 h (dark gray bar) and +1.5°C 16 h/24 h (black bar) groups. Chi2 analysis between each group were used for hatchability (n = 300–318) (A), sex ratio (B), and percentage of hatched eggs at E29 (n = 224–262) (C). Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test were used for body weight (D) and temperature (E), n = 124–15, presented with standard error of mean (SEM). Values without common letters were statistically different (P < 0.05).
Breeding data.
| D1 | 39.0 ± 0.1( | 38.6 ± 0.1( | 38.6 ± 0.1( | 38.2 ± 0.0( | KW | <0.0001 |
| D31 | 35.2 ± 0.1 | 35.2 ± 0.1 | 35.4 ± 0.1 | 35.4 ± 0.1 | KW | 0.59 |
| D45 | 33.8 ± 0.2( | 31.8 ± 0.2( | 32.6 ± 0.2( | 32.3 ± 0.2( | ANOVA | <0.0001 |
| D59 | 33.3 ± 0.2( | 30.5 ± 0.2( | 31.0 ± 0.2( | 30.6 ± 0.2( | KW | <0.0001 |
| D70 | 31.9 ± 0.2( | 32.0 ± 0.2( | 31.4 ± 0.2( | 32.5 ± 0.1( | ANOVA | <0.0001 |
| D83 | 34.8 ± 0.2 | 35.2 ± 0.2 | 35.2 ± 0.2 | 34.5 ± 0.2 | KW | 0.04 |
| D95 | 35.0 ± 0.1 | 35.0 ± 0.1 | 35.1 ± 0.1 | 35.2 ± 0.1 | ANOVA | 0.53 |
| D1 | 48.2 ± 0.3( | 44.7 ± 0.3( | 42.6 ± 0.4( | 43.9 ± 0.4( | KW | <0.0001 |
| D17 | 481.5 ± 4.1( | 479.8 ± 4.4( | 495.2 ± 6.7( | 506.9 ± 6.7( | KW | 0.026 |
| D31 | 1669 ± 13( | 1646 ± 14( | 1713 ± 16( | 1719 ± 17( | ANOVA | 0.0012 |
| D45 | 2622 ± 22( | 2770 ± 23( | 2833 ± 22( | 2760 ± 26( | ANOVA | <0.0001 |
| D59 | 3684 ± 30( | 3808 ± 29( | 3943 ± 29( | 3865 ± 31( | ANOVA | <0.0001 |
| D70 | 4167 ± 36( | 4181 ± 33( | 4351 ± 39( | 4240 ± 35( | ANOVA | 0.0009 |
| D83 | 4562 ± 39( | 4522 ± 38( | 4683 ± 41( | 4576 ± 41( | ANOVA | 0.03 |
| D95 | 6102 ± 54 | 6144 ± 46 | 6208 ± 51 | 6191 ± 49 | KW | 0.37 |
Effect of temperature manipulation on average daily gain (ADG).
| D1–D17 | 27.09 ± 0.25( | 27.16 ± 0.27( | 28.31 ± 0.41( | 28.93 ± 0.40( | KW | 0.0016 |
| D18–D30 | 91.20 ± 0.72( | 89.44 ± 0.78( | 93.38 ± 0.79( | 93.20 ± 0.80( | ANOVA | 0.0007 |
| D31–D44 | 73.26 ± 1.07( | 86.62 ± 1.11( | 86.16 ± 0.97( | 80.68 ± 1.07( | KW | <0.0001 |
| D45–D58 | 81.56 ± 1.92( | 80.77 ± 1.26( | 86.95 ± 1.31( | 83.91 ± 1.25( | KW | 0.0013 |
| D59–D69 | 48.90 ± 1.53( | 38.77 ± 1.12( | 40.94 ± 1.54( | 38.08 ± 1.39( | ANOVA | <0.0001 |
| D70–D83 | 33.54 ± 1.29( | 28.20 ± 1.01( | 26.24 ± 1.16( | 29.85 ± 1.13( | ANOVA | <0.0001 |
| D84–D95 (OF) | 139.3 ± 2.03 | 142.5 ± 2.64 | 135.9 ± 2.09 | 142.4 ± 1.99 | ANOVA | 0.119 |
Plasma data.
| Glucose (g/L) | 2.22 ± 0.08 | 2.41 ± 0.09 | 2.41 ± 0.07 | 2.34 ± 0.09 | 3.00 ± 0.17 | 3.11 ± 0.11 | 2.92 ± 0.08 | 3.00 ± 0.13 | <0.0001 | ns | ns |
| Triglycerides (g/L) | 0.94 ± 0.08 | 1.17 ± 0.09 | 1.14 ± 0.11 | 1.02 ± 0.05 | 3.74 ± 0.28 | 4.26 ± 0.24 | 3.60 ± 0.21 | 3.79 ± 0.22 | <0.0001 | ns | ns |
| Cholesterol (g/L) | 1.80 ± 0.14 | 2.02 ± 0.15 | 2.06 ± 0.11 | 1.85 ± 0.09 | 3.18 ± 0.13 | 3.54 ± 0.15 | 3.66 ± 0.15 | 3.31 ± 0.17 | <0.0001 | ns | ns |
| FFA (g/L) | 0.26 ± 0.03 | 0.27 ± 0.02 | 0.23 ± 0.02 | 0.29 ± 0.02 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 0.24 ± 0.02 | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 0.22 ± 0.02 | 0.0165 | ns | ns |
| Corticosterone (ng/mL) | 81 ± 9 | 130 ± 10 | 102 ± 10 | 99 ± 12 | 42 ± 6 | 51 ± 5 | 45 ± 7 | 41 ± 5 | <0.0001 | 0.0064 | ns |
| Free T3 (pmol/L) | 3.79 ± 0.17 | 3.71 ± 0.17 | 3.69 ± 0.21 | 4.42 ± 0.19 | 6.82 ± 0.28 | 7.13 ± 0.29 | 6.09 ± 0.25 | 6.89 ± 0.31 | <0.0001 | 0.0147 | ns |
| Free T4 (pmol/L) | 9.36 ± 0.26 | 9.50 ± 0.43 | 10.01 ± 0.21 | 9.89 ± 0.40 | 6.75 ± 0.64 | 7.70 ± 0.79 | 8.39 ± 0.58 | 9.09 ± 0.55 | <0.0001 | 0.0365 | ns |
| Ratio T3/T4 | 0.40 ± 0.01 | 0.41 ± 0.03 | 0.41 ± 0.04 | 0.41 ± 0.02 | 1.00 ± 0.10 | 0.88 ± 0.10 | 0.75 ± 0.09 | 0.81 ± 0.06 | <0.0001 | ns | ns |
FIGURE 3Pre and post over-feeding data. (A–F) Average weight of body (A), liver (B), abdominal fat (C), leg muscle (D), subcutaneous fat (E), and breast muscle (F) of male mule ducks at D84 pre-OF and D95 post-OF in control (white bar), +1°C 16 h/24 h (clear gray bar), +1°C 24 h/24 h (dark gray bar) and +1.5°C 16 h/24 h (black bar) groups. (G) Estimated lipid content in liver of pre-OF (n = 37–39) and post-OF (n = 47–52) in control (white bar), +1°C 16 h/24 h (clear gray bar), +1°C 24 h/24 h (dark gray bar) and +1.5°C 16 h/24 h (black bar) groups, established as described in section “Materials and Methods.” Two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons test were performed (A–G). n = 90–95 for pre-OF and n = 48–52 for post-OF (A), n = 36–38 for pre-OF and n = 47–52 for post-OF (B–G). (H) Liver-Food conversion ratio (L FCR) per bird was determined using the individual daily consumption and the liver weight gain during OF (measured using each group pre-OF average liver weight and post-OF individual liver weight). One-way ANOVA and Tuckey’s multiple comparisons test were performed (n = 46–52). (I) Foie gras melting rate in overfed male mule ducks in control, (white bar), +1°C 16 h/24 h (clear gray bar), +1°C 24 h/24 h (dark gray bar) and +1.5°C 16 h/24 h (black bar) groups (n = 47–52). Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn’s multiple comparisons test were performed (n = 47–52). All data are presented with SEM. ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01; ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001. Values without common letters were statistically different (P < 0.05), ns, non-significant.
FIGURE 4Histological analysis. (A–D) Representative images of lipid droplet in the liver of the different groups: control (A), +1°C 16 h/24 h (B), +1°C 24 h/24 h (C) and +1.5°C 16 h/24 h (D). Scale bars: 50 μm. (E) Mean of lipid droplet area above 48 μm2 of male mule ducks post-OF (n = 14, the analysis was done on two different images of each sample for a total of seven samples per group). Data are presented ± SEM. One-way ANOVA (followed by Tuckey’s multiple comparison test) was performed. Values without common letters were statistically different (P < 0.05).