| Literature DB >> 32283761 |
Xabier Unamuno1,2, Javier Gómez-Ambrosi1,2,3, Beatriz Ramírez1,2,3, Amaia Rodríguez1,2,3, Sara Becerril1,2,3, Víctor Valentí2,3,4, Rafael Moncada2,3,5, Camilo Silva2,6, Javier Salvador2,6, Gema Frühbeck1,2,3,6, Victoria Catalán1,2,3.
Abstract
Compelling evidence suggests that dermatopontin (DPT) regulates collagen and fibronectin fibril formation, the induction of cell adhesion and the prompting of wound healing. We aimed to evaluate the role of DPT on obesity and its associated metabolic alterations as well as its impact in visceral adipose tissue (VAT) inflammation and extracellular matrix (ECM) remodelling. Samples obtained from 54 subjects were used in a case-control study. Circulating and VAT expression levels of DPT as well as key ECM remodelling- and inflammation-related genes were analysed. The effect of pro- and anti-inflammatory mediators on the transcript levels of DPT in visceral adipocytes was explored. The impact of DPT on ECM remodelling and inflammation pathways was also evaluated in cultured adipocytes. We show that obesity and obesity-associated type 2 diabetes (T2D) increased (p < 0.05) circulating levels of DPT. In this line, DPT mRNA in VAT was increased (p < 0.05) in obese patients with and without T2D. Gene expression levels of DPT were enhanced (p < 0.05) in human visceral adipocytes after the treatment with lipopolysaccharide, tumour growth factor (TGF)- and palmitic acid, whereas a downregulation (p < 0.05) was detected after the stimulation with interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, critical cytokines mediating anti-inflammatory pathways. Additionally, we revealed that DPT increased (p < 0.05) the expression of ECM- (COL6A3, ELN, MMP9, TNMD) and inflammation-related factors (IL6, IL8, TNF) in human visceral adipocytes. These findings provide, for the first time, evidence of a novel role of DPT in obesity and its associated comorbidities by influencing AT remodelling and inflammation.Entities:
Keywords: adipose tissue; dermatopontin; extracellular matrix remodeling; fibrosis; inflammation; obesity
Year: 2020 PMID: 32283761 PMCID: PMC7230369 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9041069
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Anthropometric and biochemical characteristics of subjects included in the study.
| Lean | Obese NG | Obese T2D | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 13 (5, 8) | 21 (6, 15) | 20 (8, 12) |
|
| 38 ± 2 | 41 ± 3 | 42 ± 3 |
|
| 21.8 ± 0.9 | 41.6 ± 1.3 ** | 46.5 ± 1.3 ***,†† |
|
| 22.6 ± 2.1 | 53.2 ± 1.4 *** | 52.1 ± 2.1 *** |
|
| 75 ± 3 | 119 ± 3 *** | 129 ± 2 ***,† |
|
| 94 ± 1 | 127 ± 2 *** | 136 ± 3 ***,† |
|
| 0.79 ± 0.02 | 0.94 ± 0.02 *** | 0.96 ± 0.02 *** |
|
| 34 ± 1 | 38 ± 1 ** | 42 ± 1 **,†† |
|
| 85 ± 6 | 86 ± 2 | 123 ± 6 **,††† |
|
| – | 112 ± 3 | 196 ± 14 ††† |
|
| 7.2 ± 1.3 | 17.1 ± 1.4 | 22.2 ± 3.8 |
|
| – | 72.7 ± 8.6 | 140.0 ± 18.1 ††† |
|
| 1.6 ± 0.4 | 4.0 ± 1.1 | 6.3 ± 1.3 |
|
| 0.369 ± 0.016 | 0.334 ± 0.010 | 0.305 ± 0.007 ** |
|
| 67 ± 12 | 97 ± 7 | 143 ± 13 **,†† |
|
| 171 ± 8 | 195 ± 10 | 189 ± 7 |
|
| 88 ± 5 | 119 ± 7 | 113 ± 6 |
|
| 69 ± | 56 ± 5 | 47 ± 3 * |
|
| 8.9 ± 2.4 | 58.2 ± 5.9 *** | 40.8 ± 8.4 ** |
|
| 0.53 ± 0.08 | 9.0 ± 2.1 *** | 8.1 ± 1.8 *** |
|
| 194 ± 12 | 402 ± 18 *** | 354 ± 23 *** |
|
| 57 ± 10 | 143 ± 15 ** | 131 ± 14 ** |
|
| 6.6 ± 0.5 | 9.4 ± 0.8 | 10.4 ± 0.6 ** |
|
| 12 ± 1 | 18 ± 4 | 16 ± 4 |
|
| 6 ± 3 | 22 ± 3 | 28 ± 2 ** |
|
| 2.24 ± 0.14 | 0.87 ± 0.08 *** | 0.67 ± 0.06 *** |
|
| 74 ± 6 | 90 ± 6 | 92 ± 7 |
|
| 13 ± 3 | 19 ± 3 | 30 ± 5 |
ALP, alkaline phosphatase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BMI, body mass index; CRP, C-reactive protein; γ-GT, γ-glutamyltransferase; HOMA, homeostatic model assessment; NG, normoglycemic; OGTT, oral glucose tolerance test; QUICKI, quantitative insulin sensitivity check index; T2D, type 2 diabetes. Data are mean ± SEM. CRP concentrations were logarithmically transformed for statistical analysis. Differences between groups were analysed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc tests or by unpaired two-tailed Student’s t tests, where appropriate. **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01 and ****p < 0.001 vs. lean. † p < 0.05, †† p < 0.01 and ††† p < 0.01 vs. obese NG.
Figure 1Circulating concentrations and gene expression levels of dermatopontin (DPT) in obesity, obesity-associated type 2 diabetes (T2D) and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). (A) Fasting plasma concentrations of DPT in lean (LN) volunteers, obese normoglycemic (NG) subjects and obese patients with T2D. (B) Bar graphs show the mRNA levels of DPT and tumour growth factor-β (TGFB1) in visceral adipose tissue (VAT) from lean volunteers, obese NG subjects and obese patients with T2D as well as in (C) adipocytes and stromovascular fraction (SVF) cells. (D) Bar graphs show the mRNA levels of metalloproteinase (MMP)-2, MMP9 and tenascin C (TNC) in VAT from lean volunteers, obese NG subjects and obese patients with T2D Gene expression levels of DPT and TGFB1 in liver (E) and VAT (F) from obese volunteers classified according to the presence or not of NAFLD. Bars represent the mean ± SEM. Differences between groups were analysed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s tests as well as by paired or unpaired two-tailed Student’s t tests, where appropriate. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001 vs. LN subjects, adipocytes or nonNAFLD. †† p < 0.01 vs. obese NG volunteers.
Univariate analysis of the correlations between circulating levels of dermatopontin (DPT) with anthropometric measurement and biochemical parameters.
| Circulating Levels of DPT | ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.17 | 0.224 |
|
| 0.44 |
|
|
| 0.35 |
|
|
| 0.53 |
|
|
| 0.36 |
|
|
| 0.53 |
|
|
| 0.49 |
|
|
| 0.01 | 0.934 |
|
| 0.43 |
|
|
| 0.34 |
|
|
| –0.26 | 0.106 |
|
| 0.31 | 0.052 |
|
| 0.18 | 0.262 |
|
| 0.05 | 0.741 |
|
| –0.49 |
|
|
| 0.27 | 0.122 |
|
| 0.06 | 0.706 |
|
| 0.01 | 0.933 |
|
| 0.16 | 0.357 |
|
| 0.46 |
|
|
| 0.09 | 0.555 |
|
| 0.02 | 0.907 |
|
| –0.36 | 0.019 |
|
| 0.09 | 0.549 |
|
| 0.02 | 0.882 |
ALP, alkaline phosphatase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BMI, body mass index; CRP, C-reactive protein; γ-GT, γ-glutamyltransferase; DPT, dermatopontin; HOMA, homeostatic model assessment; QUICKI, quantitative insulin sensitivity check index. Differences between groups were analysed by Pearson’s correlation coefficients. Bold figures highlight statistically significant differences.
Figure 2Effect of inflammation-related factors on mRNA levels of DPT. Gene expression levels of DPT in cultured human visceral adipocytes incubated during 24 h with (A) LPS, (B) TNF-α, (C) IL-4, (D) IL-13, (E) TGF-β and (F) palmitic acid. Gene expression levels in unstimulated cells were assumed to be 1. Values are the mean ± SEM (n = 6 per group). Differences between groups were analysed by one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s tests. * p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 vs. unstimulated cells.
Figure 3DPT induces the expression of ECM- and inflammation-related factors in human visceral adipocytes. Gene expression levels of extracellular matrix remodelling-related molecules (A) as well as inflammatory factors (B) in human visceral adipocytes stimulated with recombinant DPT (1, 10 and 100 ng/mL) for 24 h. Gene expression levels in unstimulated cells were assumed to be 1. Values are the mean ± SEM (n = 6 per group). Differences between groups were analysed by one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnet’s post hoc tests. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001 vs. unstimulated cells.