| Literature DB >> 31965758 |
Shunsuke Hoshino1, Masaki Kobayashi1, Ryoma Tagawa1, Ryutaro Konno1, Takuro Abe1, Kazuhiro Furuya1, Kumi Miura1, Hiroki Wakasawa1, Naoyuki Okita2, Yuka Sudo1, Yuhei Mizunoe3, Yoshimi Nakagawa3, Takeshi Nakamura4, Hiroshi Kawabe5,6,7, Yoshikazu Higami1.
Abstract
White adipose tissue (WAT) is important for maintenance of homeostasis, because it stores energy and secretes adipokines. The WAT of obese people demonstrates mitochondrial dysfunction, accompanied by oxidative stress, which leads to insulin resistance. WW domain-containing E3 ubiquitin protein ligase 1 (WWP1) is a member of the HECT-type E3 family of ubiquitin ligases and is associated with several diseases. Recently, we demonstrated that WWP1 is induced specifically in the WAT of obese mice, where it protects against oxidative stress. Here, we investigated the function of WWP1 in WAT of obese mice by analyzing the phenotype of Wwp1 knockout (KO) mice fed a high-fat diet. The levels of oxidative stress markers were higher in obese WAT from Wwp1 KO mice. Moreover, Wwp1 KO mice had lower activity of citrate synthase, a mitochondrial enzyme. We also measured AKT phosphorylation in obese WAT and found lower levels in Wwp1 KO mice. However, plasma insulin level was low and glucose level was unchanged in obese Wwp1 KO mice. Moreover, both glucose tolerance test and insulin tolerance test were improved in obese Wwp1 KO mice. These findings indicate that WWP1 participates in the antioxidative response and mitochondrial function in WAT, but knockdown of WWP1 improves whole-body glucose metabolism.Entities:
Keywords: WWP1; antioxidative capacity; mitochondrial function; obesity; white adipose tissue
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31965758 PMCID: PMC7050250 DOI: 10.1002/2211-5463.12795
Source DB: PubMed Journal: FEBS Open Bio ISSN: 2211-5463 Impact factor: 2.693
Figure 1WWP1 is involved in antioxidative reactions in obese WAT. (A–C) Glutathione concentrations in WAT from all groups of mice were measured spectrophotometrically at 412 nm. (A) total GSH, (B) GSSG, (C) GSH/GSSG ratio. (D) Immunoblotting of 4‐HNE in WAT lysates from all groups of mice. CBB staining was used as the loading control. Quantitative values represent mean ± SD (n = 3–5 per group). Differences between these values were analyzed using the Tukey–Kramer test [##, P < 0.01 Wwp1 WT mice (HFD‐fed) vs. Wwp1 KO mice (HFD‐fed)].
Figure 2The WWP1 is required for normal mitochondrial function in obese WAT. (A) CS activity in WAT from all groups of mice was measured spectrophotometrically at 412 nm. (B) Genomic Cox2 levels were quantified using real‐time PCR (n = 3–5). Quantitative values represent mean ± SD. Differences between these values were analyzed using the Tukey–Kramer test [##, P < 0.01 Wwp1 WT mice (HFD‐fed) vs. Wwp1 KO mice (HFD‐fed); $$, P < 0.01 Wwp1 WT mice (ND‐fed) vs. Wwp1 WT mice (HFD‐fed); %%, P < 0.01 Wwp1 KO mice (ND‐fed) vs. Wwp1 KO mice (HFD‐fed)].
Figure 3The WWP1 contributes to the maintenance of insulin sensitivity in obese WAT. (A) Immunoblotting for phosphorylated AKT (pAKT) and total AKT in WAT from all groups of mice. (B, C) Plasma insulin (B) and glucose (C) levels from all groups of mice. (D‐G) Blood glucose levels during GTT (D) or ITT (F) in HFD‐fed Wwp1 WT and KO mice. Each area under the curve (AUC) is calculated and shown as (E) or (G). Quantitative data represent mean ± SD (n = 4–6 per group). Differences between these values were analyzed using the Tukey–Kramer test [#, P < 0.05, ##, P < 0.01, ###, P < 0.001, Wwp1 WT mice (HFD‐fed) vs. Wwp1 KO mice (HFD‐fed); $, P < 0.05, $$$, P < 0.001 Wwp1 WT mice (ND‐fed) vs. Wwp1 WT mice (HFD‐fed); %%%, P < 0.001 Wwp1 KO mice (ND‐fed) vs. Wwp1 KO mice (HFD‐fed)].
Figure 4The WWP1 contributes minimally to the regulation of adipokines and Pparγ in obese WAT. (A‐C) mRNA levels of adipokines (A) Adipoq and (B) Leptin, and (C) Pparγ in WAT from all groups of mice were measured. (D) Plasma leptin levels from all groups of mice were measured by ELISA. Quantitative data represent mean ± SD (n = 6–10 per group). Differences between these values were analyzed using the Tukey–Kramer test [$$, P < 0.01, $$$, P < 0.001 Wwp1 WT mice (ND‐fed) vs. Wwp1 WT mice (HFD‐fed); %%, P < 0.01, %%%, P < 0.001 Wwp1 KO mice (ND‐fed) vs. Wwp1 KO mice (HFD‐fed)].