| Literature DB >> 32994521 |
Sophie Castonguay-Paradis1,2,3, Sébastien Lacroix1,3, Gabrielle Rochefort1,2,3, Lydiane Parent2,3, Julie Perron1,3, Cyril Martin4,3, Benoît Lamarche1,2, Frédéric Raymond1,2,3, Nicolas Flamand4,5,3, Vincenzo Di Marzo1,4,2,5,6,3, Alain Veilleux7,8,9.
Abstract
The endocannabinoidome encompasses several fatty acid (FA)-derived mediators, including the endocannabinoid anandamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonoyl-glycerol (2-AG), which served as targets for anti-obesity drug development, and their congener N-acyl-ethanolamines (NAEs) and 2-monoacyl-glycerols (2‑MAGs), which are involved in food intake and energy metabolism. Body weight and fat distribution have been suggested as determinants of peripheral endocannabinoid levels. We aimed at investigating factors, beyond body fat composition, that are associated with circulating NAE and 2-MAG levels in a heterogeneous human population. Plasma NAEs and 2-MAGs were measured using LC-MS/MS in a cross-sectional sample of healthy men and women (n = 195) covering a wide range of BMI and individuals before and after a 2-day Mediterranean diet (n = 21). Circulating levels of all 2-MAGs and NAEs, other than N-oleoyl-ethanolamine (OEA), correlated with body fat mass and visceral adipose tissue (0.26 < r < 0.54). NAE levels were elevated in individuals with elevated fat mass, while 2-MAGs were increased in individuals with predominantly visceral body fat distribution. Dietary intakes of specific FAs were associated with 2-AG and omega-3-FA-derived NAEs or 2-MAGs, irrespective of the body fat distribution. Some gut bacterial families (e.g. Veillonellaceae, Peptostreptococcaceae and Akkermansiaceae) were associated with variations in most NAEs or omega-3-FA-derived 2‑MAGs, independently of fat mass and dietary FA intake. Finally, a 2-day Mediterranean diet intervention increased circulating levels of NAEs and 2-MAGs in agreement with changes in FA intake (p < 0.01). Self-reported intake and short-term dietary intervention increased in oleic acid and EPA and DHA intake as well as certain gut microbiota taxa are associated to circulating NAEs and 2‑MAGs independently of adiposity measures, thus highlighting the potential importance of these variables in determining endocannabinoidome signaling in humans.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32994521 PMCID: PMC7524791 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-72861-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Anthropometric and metabolic characteristics of the subjects of the cross-sectional cohort.
| Men (n = 93) | Women (n = 102) | p value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Range | Mean (SD) | Range | ||
| Age (year) | 42 (19) | 20–85 | 40 ± 17 | 19–77 | NS |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.5 (4.2) | 17.3–36.8 | 24.6 ± 5.0 | 13.3–42.0 | NS |
| Overweight | 38 | – | 23 | – | – |
| Obesity | 12 | – | 17 | – | – |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 91.4 (13.4) | 70.0–130.8 | 83.0 (14.1) | 60.0–121.0 | < 0.001 |
| Fat mass (kg) | 20.2 (9.0) | 7.2–43.3 | 23.6 (10.5) | 4.7–54.0 | 0.02 |
| Visceral adipose tissue (kg) | 0.90 (0.91) | 0.01–4.32 | 0.45 (0.56) | 0–2.27 | < 0.001 |
| Fasting glucose (mmol/L) | 5.1 (0.8) | 3.7–10.2 | 4.8 (0.6) | 3.9–8.7 | < 0.001 |
| HOMA-IR | 1.6 (1.1) | 0.2–5.9 | 1.4 (1.0) | 0.3–6.0 | NS |
| HbA1c (%) | 5.3 (0.5) | 4.3–8.2 | 5.2 (0.4) | 4.4–7.3 | NS |
| Triglycerides (mmol/L) | 1.2 (0.6) | 0.4–4.5 | 1.0 (0.5) | 0.4–3.7 | 0.02 |
| Total cholesterol (mmol/L) | 4.5 (1.1) | 1.8–7.7 | 4.7 (1.1) | 2.2–7.6 | NS |
| HDL cholesterol (mmol/L) | 1.4 (0.4) | 0.6–2.5 | 1.8 (0.4) | 0.9–3.3 | < 0.001 |
| LDL cholesterol (mmol/L) | 2.6 (0.9) | 0.7–5.2 | 2.5 (0.9) | 0.6–5.5 | NS |
Values are expressed as mean (SD) or n.
Circulating NAEs and 2‑MAGs in the entire cohort and in a subset of men and women matched for age and BMI.
| Mediators (pmol/ml) | Entire cohort (n = 195) | Matched for age and BMI | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men (n = 59) | Women (n = 59) | |||
| AEA | 0.89 ± 0.32 | 0.89 ± 0.33 | 0.94 ± 0.30 | NS |
| PEA | 6.93 ± 3.69 | 7.55 ± 5.54 | 6.42 ± 1.75 | NS |
| OEA | 5.60 ± 1.91 | 6.08 ± 2.20 | 5.59 ± 1.69 | NS |
| LEA | 1.91 ± 0.90 | 2.04 ± 1.17 | 1.90 ± 0.85 | NS |
| EPEA | 0.07 ± 0.05 | 0.08 ± 0.06 | 0.07 ± 0.06 | NS |
| DHEA | 1.08 ± 0.44 | 1.17 ± 0.51 | 1.07 ± 0.49 | NS |
| 2-AG | 6.45 ± 4.64 | 6.32 ± 5.63 | 6.39 ± 3.64 | NS |
| 2-PG | 10.4 ± 7.81 | 10.6 ± 10.4 | 10.4 ± 6.04 | NS |
| 2-OG | 43.1 ± 32.2 | 42.3 ± 46.4 | 43.0 ± 23.5 | NS |
| 2-LG | 66.3 ± 39.4 | 62.8 ± 47.8 | 65.1 ± 33.2 | NS |
| 2-EPG | 1.37 ± 1.35 | 1.40 ± 1.51 | 1.50 ± 1.55 | NS |
| 2-DPG | 3.07 ± 2.42 | 2.10 ± 1.64 | 3.39 ± 2.13 | < 0.001 |
| 2-DHG | 3.71 ± 3.32 | 3.81 ± 3.74 | 3.97 ± 3.72 | NS |
Values are expressed as mean ± SD.
Pearson correlation coefficients between circulating NAEs and 2‑MAGs and body composition and fat distribution.
| Fat mass (kg) | Visceral fat mass (kg) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted | Adjusted for fat mass | ||
| AEA | 0.35** | 0.33** | 0.12 |
| PEA | 0.39** | 0.35** | 0.12 |
| OEA | 0.12 | 0.16* | 0.11 |
| LEA | 0.23* | 0.20* | 0.05 |
| EPEA | 0.45** | 0.38** | 0.11 |
| DHEA | 0.24** | 0.20* | 0.05 |
| 2-AG | 0.35** | 0.47** | 0.34** |
| 2-PG | 0.25** | 0.36** | 0.27** |
| 2-OG | 0.26** | 0.46** | 0.39** |
| 2-LG | 0.13 | 0.32** | 0.32** |
| 2-EPG | 0.33** | 0.54** | 0.45** |
| 2-DPG | 0.20* | 0.44** | 0.42** |
| 2-DHG | 0.33** | 0.41** | 0.26** |
*p-value < 0.01, **p-value < 0.001.
Figure 1Hierarchical clustering based on principal component analysis (PCA) of circulating NAEs and 2‑MAGs (n = 195). (A) Loading plot of the principal component analysis including all circulating levels of NAEs and 2-MAGs. (B) PCA visualization of NAE and 2‑MAG profile for each individual. Colors indicate the 3 clusters determined using hierarchical clustering. (C) Heatmap representation of normalized levels of each NAE and 2‑MAG according to the clusters. (D) Mean ± SD of circulating NAEs and 2‑MAGs by clusters. Analysis of variance and Tukey HSD post hoc statistics are shown: (a) 1 vs 2; (b) 1 vs 3 and (c) 2 vs 3. (E) Fat mass (kg) and (F) visceral adipose tissue mass (kg) according to clusters with analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test. Letters indicate significant differences between clusters (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Circulating NAE and 2‑MAG levels stratified by tertiles of self-reported fatty acid intakes. Values are mean ± SEM. Letters indicate significant differences between tertiles in analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc test (p < 0.05; n = 47 to 71 per tertile). Results of the generalized linear model including the mediators as the dependent variables and fat mass (NAEs) or visceral fat mass (2‑MAGs) as independent variables are included in each graph.
Figure 3Circulating NAE and 2‑MAG levels association with gut bacterial taxa independent of adiposity measures. (A) Heatmap of Spearman's rank correlation coefficients of the relative abundances of gut microbiota taxa and the levels of circulating NAEs and 2‑MAGs. The analysis includes all gut microbiota families (Top) as well as the genera from families significantly associated with the mediators (Bottom). Circle color intensity represents the magnitude of the unadjusted correlation (Spearman rho coefficients). Blue circles indicate positive correlations and red circles negative correlations. Significant correlations following adjustment for total fat mass (NAEs) or visceral fat mass (2‑MAGs) are shown (*p < 0.1, **p < 0.05; n = 195). (B) Standardized regression coefficients of independent predictors of circulating NAE and 2-MAG levels. Results of the generalized linear model including the mediators as the dependent variables and fat mass (NAEs) or visceral fat mass (2‑MAGs) as independent variables are included in each graph. All bacterial families significantly associated to the mediator were considered in this analysis. All models also include the total or visceral fat mass as well as the dietary intake of the fatty acid precursor. Stepwise selection procedure was used to compute final models (*p < 0.05).
Figure 4Circulating NAE and 2‑MAG levels following the 13-day control diet (PRE) and after the 2 days on the Mediterranean diet (POST). Values are mean ± SEM. n = 21 except for EPEA (n = 19), 2-EPG (n = 9), 2-PG (n = 9) and 2-DPG (n = 20). Paired t-test between PRE and POST dietary intervention (p < 0.05). ND not determine.