| Literature DB >> 31969995 |
Imran Khan1, Sabrina Pathan1, Xiao Ang Li1, Wai Kit Leong1, Wei Lin Liao1, Vincent Wong1, W L Wendy Hsiao1.
Abstract
Far infrared radiation (FIR) has been widely used to treat chronic diseases and symptoms; however, the underlying mechanism remains unclear. As gut microbiota (GM) markedly impact the host's physiology, making GM a potential target for the therapeutic evaluation of FIR. C57BL/6J mice were exposed to five times of 2 min-FIR exposure on the abdomen, with a two-hour interval of each exposure within one day. Fecal samples were collected on day one and day 25 after the FIR/control treatment, and the extracted fecal DNAs were evaluated using ERIC-PCR and 16S amplicon sequencing. Host's G-protein coupled receptors (GPCR) were analyzed using qRT-PCR. FIR induced immediate changes in the GM composition. A prompt and significant (p < 0.05) reduction in the abundance of phylum Deferribacteres (comprised of several pathogens) was observed in the FIR-irradiated mice compared to the control group. Contrarily, FIR exposure induced beneficial genera such as Alistipes, Barnesiella, and Prevotella. The gut of FIR-irradiated mice was predominated by short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) producers. Also, FIR stimulated the expression of SCFAs-sensing receptors, GPCR 41, 43, and 109 in the gut epithelial barrier. These findings provide the first-hand evidence in which the beneficial effects of FIR radiation might be partially through the modulation of GM.Entities:
Keywords: 16S amplicon sequencing; ERIC-PCR; Far infrared; GPCR; Gut microbiota; SCFA
Year: 2019 PMID: 31969995 PMCID: PMC6965508 DOI: 10.1016/j.jare.2019.12.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Adv Res ISSN: 2090-1224 Impact factor: 10.479
Fig. 1Graphical presentation of experimental model and ERIC-PCR based analysis of GM in control and FIR-irradiated mice. (A) The setting of the FIR irradiation and the experimental design. FIR-emitting device was mounted on a stand and adjusted to a height of 2 cm against the mouse abdomen. The mouse was held by hand with the belly up for receiving FIR irradiation. Nine mice were housed together in the same cage for 7–10 days before each experiment, then randomly divided into experimental groups in separated cages. (B) PLS-DA plots of ERIC-PCR DNA profiles of the FIR-treated and the control mice (n = 3). Fecal genomic DNAs were subjected to ERIC-PCR and the resulting DNA banding patterns on the gel were digitized by Image Lab 3.0 system (Bio-Rad). Based on the distance and the intensity of each DNA bands, SIMCA-P 14.0 tool (Umetrics, Umea, Sweden) with 95% (p < 0.05) confidence level was applied to obtain the PLS-DA score plots (Chen et al. 2016). Each symbol in the PLS-DA plots (Panels B&D) represents the GM profile of each experimental mouse. All the mice were in same cage before treatment and were marked with green, red or white dots to track down the movement of GM of each mouse over time. (C) FIR-treatment Scheme (n = 6). 12 mice were housed together in the same cage until day-0, then randomly allocated to each experimental group in a separated cage. (D) PLS-DA plots of ERIC-PCR assays for fecal DNAs obtained from the treated and control mice on D1, D2, D3 and D25.
List of primers used for Clostridial cluster and GPR amplification.
| Target gene | Nucleotide sequence of primer (5′–3′) | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forward | Reverse | ||
| C. Cluster IV | GCACAAGCAGTGGAG T | CTTCCTCCGTTTTGTCAA | |
| C. Cluster XIV | TGACCGGCCACATTGGGACTG | TCATCCCCACCTTCCTCCAG | |
| C. Cluster XIVa | CTTTGAGTTTCATTCTTGCGAA | GCAGTGGGG AATATTGCA | |
| But Transferase | ggWatWggMgsYatgcc | aaRtcaaSctgKccDc | |
| But Kinase | tgctgtWgttggWagaggYgga | gcaacIgcYttttgatttaatgcatgg | |
| mm-CoA decarboxylase | AATGACTCGGGIGGIGCIMGNATHCARGA | GATTGTTACYTTIGGIACNGTNGCYTC | |
| GPR41 | GGGGTCGATACAAGAGT | CTGGCGGAGCTACGTGCT | |
| GPR43 | TTCTTACTGGGCTCCCTGCC | TACCAGCGGAAGTTGGATGC | |
| GPR109 | TCAGATCTGACTCGTCCACC | CCATTGCCCAGGAGTCCGAAC | |
Fig. 216S rRNA gene sequencing analysis of the fecal DNAs collected from the FIR-treated and the control mice. The mice were exposed to FIR radiation according to the Scheme II described in Fig. 1C. The control mice were held by hand without FIR treatment. N = 5/group. (A) Weighted UniFrac distance analysis of the top 200 most abundant OTUs in the fecal samples collected from animal model shown in Fig. 1C. X and Y axis are showing GM separation among the groups based on distance analysis. Each dot represents the top 200 OTUs of the individual mouse. (B) Alpha diversity analysis of GM in the samples collected from the mouse model shown in Fig. 1C. Every dot is representing total OTUs of the individual mouse. Data presented in Fig. 2B and C was analyzed and visualized with R package phyloseq. (C) Comparison of the relative abundance of the detected phyla in the control and FIR-irradiated mice. Statistical significance was done with Mann-Whitney U test. (D) Longitudinal comparison of the relative abundance of the phyla detected in the control and FIR exposed mice. Statistical significance was done with Wilcoxon signed-rank test. (E) Number of OTUs assigned to genus Mucispirillum. (F) Number of OTUs assigned to genera Anaeroplasma and Mycoplasma. (G) Number of OTUs assigned to Akkermansia muciniphila. (H) Relative percentile abundance of the three genera that are contributing to the enrichment of phylum Bacteroidetes in FIR treated mice.
Fig. 3Comparison of the differentially abundant species in the fecal DNAs from the FIR-treated and the control mice using linear discriminant analysis (LEfSe), and qPCR assay. The analysis was performed on OTUs comprising ≥97% of the total abundance in each group. LEfSe analysis of the bacterial species between control and FIR-exposed mice on D1 (A) and D25 (B) as described in Fig. 3A. Data analysis was carried out with bioBakery. Threshold parameters were set as: p = 0.05 Kruskal-Wallis; LDA score was set to 3, and multi-class analysis = all against all. (C) Comparison of the relative abundance of Clostridium cluster IV and XIV. Species that belong to these clusters were subset and comparatively analyzed. (D) qPCR analysis of the main SCFAs-producers in fecal DNAs of the FIR-treated and control mice on D1 and D25. Panels 3C-E were generated using GraphPad Prism version 5.01.
Fig. 4(A) Quantitative analysis of the three main key enzymes in the SCFA synthetic pathways using qPCR technique. Specific primer used in each PCR reactions are listed in Table 1. Significance was generated with t-test. (B) mRNA expressions of SCFAs-sensing receptors. qRT-PCR was performed for the expressions of GPR41, 43, and 109 in the intestinal mucosa of the FIR-treated and the control mice. The GPRs specific primers used for the qRT-PCR were listed in Table 1. Figures were plotted using GraphPad Prism version 5.01.