| Literature DB >> 32413078 |
Kristen N Gilley1, Kathryn A Wierenga2,3, Preeti S Chauhuan1,2, James G Wagner3,4, Ryan P Lewandowski4, Elizbeth A Ross1, A L Lock5, Jack R Harkema3,4, Abby D Benninghoff6, James J Pestka1,3,7.
Abstract
Lupus is a debilitating multi-organ autoimmune disease clinically typified by periods of flare and remission. Exposing lupus-prone female NZBWF1 mice to crystalline silica (cSiO2), a known human autoimmune trigger, mimics flaring by inducing interferon-related gene (IRG) expression, inflammation, ectopic lymphoid structure (ELS) development, and autoantibody production in the lung that collectively accelerate glomerulonephritis. cSiO2-triggered flaring in this model can be prevented by supplementing mouse diet with the ω-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). A limitation of previous studies was the use of purified diet that, although optimized for rodent health, does not reflect the high American intake of saturated fatty acid (SFA), ω-6 PUFAs, and total fat. To address this, we employed here a modified Total Western Diet (mTWD) emulating the 50th percentile U.S. macronutrient distribution to discern how DHA supplementation and/or SFA and ω-6 reduction influences cSiO2-triggered lupus flaring in female NZBWF1 mice. Six-week-old mice were fed isocaloric experimental diets for 2 wks, intranasally instilled with cSiO2 or saline vehicle weekly for 4 wks, and tissues assessed for lupus endpoints 11 wks following cSiO2 instillation. In mice fed basal mTWD, cSiO2 induced robust IRG expression, proinflammatory cytokine and chemokine elevation, leukocyte infiltration, ELS neogenesis, and autoantibody production in the lung, as well as early kidney nephritis onset compared to vehicle-treated mice fed mTWD. Consumption of mTWD containing DHA at the caloric equivalent to a human dose of 5 g/day dramatically suppressed induction of all lupus-associated endpoints. While decreasing SFA and ω-6 in mTWD modestly inhibited some disease markers, DHA addition to this diet was required for maximal protection against lupus development. Taken together, DHA supplementation at a translationally relevant dose was highly effective in preventing cSiO2-triggered lupus flaring in NZBWF1 mice, even against the background of a typical Western diet.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32413078 PMCID: PMC7228097 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233183
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 12DHA supplementation against the complex background of the Western diet suppresses cSiO2-triggered flaring and progression of lupus in NZBWF1 mice.
The results presented here and in other investigations suggest that cSiO2 promotes cell death in alveolar macrophages, resulting in the release of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines that recruit and activate additional immune cells, including T cells and B cells. Accumulation of cellular debris results in uptake and presentation of autoantigens (AAg) to T- and B-cells. Among the cellular debris are host nucleic acids, which stimulate the production of Type I IFN from plasmacytoid dendritic cells. Type I IFN promotes cytokine release, antigen uptake, and maturation of B cells to plasma cells, which produce autoantibodies (AAb) against host antigens both locally and systemically. Upon binding their cognate AAgs, Aabs can form immune complexes that ultimately deposit in the kidney inflicting damage. The red ┴ indicates steps where DHA supplementation has been demonstrated to interfere with this pathway.
Experimental diet formulations.
| Experimental Diet | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | ↑DHA | ↓SF.ω-6 | ↓SF.ω-6 ↑DHA | |
| 190.00 | 190.00 | 190.00 | 190.00 | |
| 2.85 | 2.85 | 2.85 | 2.85 | |
| 230.00 | 230.00 | 230.00 | 230.00 | |
| 70.00 | 70.00 | 70.00 | 70.00 | |
| 256.62 | 256.62 | 256.62 | 256.62 | |
| 16.50 | 16.50 | 3.30 | 3.30 | |
| 29.40 | 29.40 | 5.90 | 5.90 | |
| 36.30 | 36.30 | 7.20 | 7.20 | |
| 28.00 | 28.00 | 5.60 | 5.60 | |
| 24.80 | 24.80 | 5.00 | 5.00 | |
| 0.40 | 0.40 | 0.52 | 0.52 | |
| 30.00 | 30.00 | 30.00 | 30.00 | |
| 40.59 | 40.59 | 40.59 | 40.59 | |
| 11.60 | 11.60 | 11.60 | 11.60 | |
| 2.90 | 2.90 | 2.90 | 2.90 | |
| 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | |
| Extra virgin olive oil | 30.00 | 0.00 | 138.00 | 108.00 |
| DHA-enriched algal oil | 0.00 | 30.00 | 0.00 | 30.00 |
aOlive oil contained 678 g/kg oleic acid and 84 g/kg linoleic acid, as reported by the USDA, FDC ID 748648
bAlgal oil contained 395 g/kg DHA and 215 g/kg oleic acid, as reported by manufacturer
Fatty acid content of experimental diets as determined by GLC.
| Experimental Diet | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | ↑DHA | ↓SF.ω6 | ↓SF.ω6↑DHA | ||
| Common Name | Chemical Formula | ||||
| Lauric | 0.65 ± 0.01A | 1.49 ± 0.03B | 0.14 ± 0.01C | 0.83 ± 0.01D | |
| Myristic | 2.87 ± 0.06A | 5.54 ± 0.05B | 0.53 ± 0.01C | 2.51 ± 0.02D | |
| Pentadecanoic | 0.29 ± 0.00A | 0.30 ± 0.00A | 0.07 ± 0.00B | 0.06 ± 0.00B | |
| Palmitic | 22.24 ± 0.16A | 22.63 ± 0.05B | 10.87 ± 0.06C | 11.00 ± 0.01C | |
| Palmitoleic | 1.15 ± 0.03A | 1.46 ± 0.02B | 0.57 ± 0.02C | 0.84 ± 0.00D | |
| Stearic | 8.49± 0.04A | 8.26 ± 0.03B | 3.61 ± 0.03C | 3.37 ± 0.01D | |
| Oleic | 39.19 ± 0.38A | 29.00 ± 0.08B | 72.63 ± 0.08C | 64.41 ± 0.03D | |
| Linoleic | 21.07 ± 0.21A | 20.62 ± 0.18B | 8.57 ± 0.04C | 7.82 ± 0.04D | |
| Arachidic | 0.21 ± 0.03A | 0.17 ± 0.01A | 0.29 ± 0.00B | 0.28 ± 0.01B | |
| alpha-Linolenic | 1.90 ± 0.03A | 1.81 ± 0.04B | 0.93 ± 0.01C | 0.87 ± 0.02C | |
| Behenic | 0.10 ± 0.01A | 0.11 ± 0.01A | 0.10 ± 0.01A | 0.11 ± 0.00A | |
| Lignoceric | 0.04 ± 0.01A | 0.05 ± 0.01A | 0.03 ± 0.00A | 0.05 ± 0.00A | |
| Eicosapentaenoic | 0.00 ± 0.00A | 0.13 ± 0.00B | 0.00 ± 0.00A | 0.10 ± 0.01C | |
| Docosahexaenoic | 0.00 ± 0.00A | 7.09 ± 0.20B | 0.00 ± 0.00A | 6.34 ± 0.08C | |
| Total SFA | 35.28 ± 0.21A | 38.84 ± 0.05B | 15.80 ± 0.08C | 18.39 ± 0.02D | |
| Total MUFA | 41.74 ± 0.36A | 31.49 ± 0.10B | 74.70 ± 0.10C | 66.49 ± 0.01D | |
| Total ω-3 PUFA | 1.90 ± 0.03A | 9.04 ± 0.19B | 0.93 ± 0.01C | 7.31 ± 0.05D | |
| Total ω-6 PUFA | 21.07 ± 0.21A | 20.62 ± 0.18B | 8.57 ± 0.04C | 7.82 ± 0.04D | |
| ω-6: ω-3 ratio | 11.07 ± 0.10A | 2.28 ± 0.07B | 9.24 ± 0.13C | 1.12 ± 0.01D | |
Data presented as mean ± SD. Difference between diets compared by ordinary one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test. Unique letters indicate significant differences between groups (p<0.05)
Red blood cell fatty acid content as determined by GLC.
| VEH / CON | cSiO2 / CON | cSiO2 /↑DHA | cSiO2 / ↓SF.ω6 | cSiO2 / ↓SF.ω6↑DHA | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Common Name | Chemical Formula | |||||||||||||||
| Myristic | 0.22 | ± | 0.01A | 0.23 | ± | 0.03A | 0.33 | ± | 0.06B | 0.13 | ± | 0.02C | 0.22 | ± | 0.02A | |
| Palmitic | 24.87 | ± | 0.48A | 25.47 | ± | 0.67A | 27.20 | ± | 0.49B | 24.71 | ± | 0.72A | 27.05 | ± | 0.38B | |
| Palmitelaidic | 0.14 | ± | 0.01A | 0.15 | ± | 0.01A | 0.14 | ± | 0.01A | 0.07 | ± | 0.01B | 0.06 | ± | 0.01B | |
| Palmitoleic | 0.45 | ± | 0.05A | 0.45 | ± | 0.06A | 0.60 | ± | 0.08B | 0.32 | ± | 0.04C | 0.41 | ± | 0.03A | |
| Stearic | 16.00 | ± | 0.40A | 16.29 | ± | 0.84A | 15.83 | ± | 0.18A | 14.84 | ± | 0.75B | 13.45 | ± | 0.41C | |
| Elaidic | 0.67 | ± | 0.02A | 0.69 | ± | 0.04A | 0.62 | ± | 0.04B | 0.27 | ± | 0.02C | 0.24 | ± | 0.02C | |
| Oleic | 14.77 | ± | 0.23A | 15.03 | ± | 0.43A | 12.99 | ± | 0.55B | 21.70 | ± | 0.19C | 20.00 | ± | 0.29D | |
| Linoelaidic | 0.10 | ± | 0.01A | 0.11 | ± | 0.01AB | 0.12 | ± | 0.03AB | 0.08 | ± | 0.01BC | 0.07 | ± | 0.01C | |
| Linoleic | 10.83 | ± | 0.34A | 10.97 | ± | 0.39A | 14.30 | ± | 0.78B | 7.96 | ± | 0.35C | 9.70 | ± | 0.47D | |
| Arachidic | 0.14 | ± | 0.01A | 0.13 | ± | 0.03A | 0.13 | ± | 0.03A | 0.12 | ± | 0.03A | 0.11 | ± | 0.02A | |
| gamma-Linolenic | 0.05 | ± | 0.01A | 0.06 | ± | 0.01A | 0.05 | ± | 0.01AB | 0.05 | ± | 0.00AB | 0.03 | ± | 0.01B | |
| Eicosenoic | 0.27 | ± | 0.01AC | 0.28 | ± | 0.02ABC | 0.18 | ± | 0.04C | 0.49 | ± | 0.06B | 0.29 | ± | 0.03AB | |
| alpha-Linolenic | 0.08 | ± | 0.01AB | 0.08 | ± | 0.01B | 0.09 | ± | 0.01B | 0.04 | ± | 0.01AC | 0.04 | ± | 0.01C | |
| Eicosadienoic | 0.29 | ± | 0.03A | 0.30 | ± | 0.03A | 0.30 | ± | 0.03A | 0.21 | ± | 0.01B | 0.18 | ± | 0.01B | |
| Behenic | 0.13 | ± | 0.04A | 0.10 | ± | 0.02B | 0.10 | ± | 0.02AB | 0.07 | ± | 0.01B | 0.09 | ± | 0.02B | |
| Dihomo-g-linolenic | 1.37 | ± | 0.14A | 1.26 | ± | 0.09A | 1.43 | ± | 0.20A | 1.42 | ± | 0.08A | 1.24 | ± | 0.14A | |
| Arachidonic | 19.92 | ± | 0.49A | 18.91 | ± | 0.87B | 6.84 | ± | 0.56C | 19.14 | ± | 0.45B | 5.11 | ± | 0.49D | |
| Lignoceric | 0.24 | ± | 0.05A | 0.18 | ± | 0.07AB | 0.20 | ± | 0.06AB | 0.14 | ± | 0.03B | 0.19 | ± | 0.01AB | |
| Eicosapentaenoic | 0.30 | ± | 0.03A | 0.25 | ± | 0.02B | 2.98 | ± | 0.16C | 0.20 | ± | 0.02D | 4.73 | ± | 0.18E | |
| Nervonic | 0.20 | ± | 0.04AC | 0.14 | ± | 0.06AB | 0.13 | ± | 0.04B | 0.21 | ± | 0.04C | 0.26 | ± | 0.02C | |
| Docosatetraenoic | 2.23 | ± | 0.09A | 2.22 | ± | 0.13A | 0.22 | ± | 0.03B | 1.98 | ± | 0.15C | 0.14 | ± | 0.01B | |
| Docosapentaenoic ω6 | 0.47 | ± | 0.03A | 0.47 | ± | 0.03A | 0.05 | ± | 0.01B | 0.51 | ± | 0.04A | 0.03 | ± | 0.01C | |
| Docosapentaenoic ω3 | 0.79 | ± | 0.06AB | 0.75 | ± | 0.08A | 0.87 | ± | 0.04BD | 0.46 | ± | 0.05C | 0.90 | ± | 0.04D | |
| Docosahexaenoic | 5.50 | ± | 0.16A | 5.50 | ± | 0.19A | 14.35 | ± | 0.49B | 5.06 | ± | 0.17C | 15.00 | ± | 0.28B | |
| Total SFA | 41.58 | ± | 0.62AC | 42.39 | ± | 0.72AB | 43.79 | ± | 0.45B | 40.01 | ± | 1.13C | 41.32 | ± | 0.35AC | |
| Total MUFA | 16.50 | ± | 0.21A | 16.73 | ± | 0.46A | 14.65 | ± | 0.57B | 23.06 | ± | 0.19C | 21.26 | ± | 0.30D | |
| Total ω-3 PUFA | 6.67 | ± | 0.16A | 6.58 | ± | 0.17A | 18.27 | ± | 0.56B | 5.76 | ± | 0.21C | 20.67 | ± | 0.27D | |
| Total ω-6 PUFA | 35.25 | ± | 0.68A | 34.30 | ± | 0.89A | 23.40 | ± | 0.14B | 31.18 | ± | 0.90C | 16.49 | ± | 0.37D | |
| ω-3 Index | 5.80 | ± | 0.15A | 5.75 | ± | 0.18A | 17.32 | ± | 0.56B | 5.27 | ± | 0.17C | 19.74 | ± | 0.28D | |
Data presented as mean ± SD. Difference between diets compared by ordinary one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison. Nonparametric versions of these tests were used when applicable. Unique letters indicate significant differences between groups (p<0.05).