| Literature DB >> 33187155 |
Yongxia Fu1, Ruiyang Yin1, Zhenyu Liu1, Yan Niu2, Erhu Guo3, Ruhong Cheng4, Xianmin Diao5, Yong Xue1, Qun Shen1.
Abstract
Millet proteins have been demonstrated to possess glucose-lowering and lipid metabolic disorder modulation functions against diabetes; however, the molecular mechanisms underlying their anti-diabetic effects remain unclear. The present study aimed to investigate the hypoglycemic effect of prolamin from cooked foxtail millet (PCFM) on type 2 diabetic mice, and explore the gut microbiota and serum metabolic profile changes that are associated with diabetes attenuation by PCFM. Our diabetes model was established using a high-fat diet combined with streptozotocin before PCFM or saline was daily administrated by gavage for 5 weeks. The results showed that PCFM ameliorated glucose metabolism disorders associated with type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, the effects of PCFM administration on gut microbiota and serum metabolome were investigated. 16S rRNA gene sequencing analysis indicated that PCFM alleviated diabetes-related gut microbiota dysbiosis in mice. Additionally, the serum metabolomics analysis revealed that the metabolite levels disturbed by diabetes were partly altered by PCFM. Notably, the decreased D-Glucose level caused by PCFM suggested that its anti-diabetic potential can be associated with the activation of glycolysis and the inhibition of gluconeogenesis, starch and sucrose metabolism and galactose metabolism. In addition, the increased serotonin level caused by PCFM may stimulate insulin secretion by pancreatic β-cells, which contributed to its hypoglycemic effect. Taken together, our research demonstrated that the modulation of gut microbiota composition and the serum metabolomics profile was associated with the anti-diabetic effect of PCFM.Entities:
Keywords: foxtail millet; gut microbiota; metabolomics; prolamin; type 2 diabetes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33187155 PMCID: PMC7696583 DOI: 10.3390/nu12113452
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Experimental design. After acclimatization for 1 week, 5-week-old male C57BL/6J mice were fed with a high-fat diet (HFD) or standard chow diet for 4 weeks. At the 5th week, male C57BL/6J mice were injected with streptozotocin (STZ) intraperitoneally at the dose of 90 mg/kg body weight (BW). One week after STZ injection, fasting blood glucose (FBG) was measured and mice with FBG levels > 11.1 mmol/L were considered as diabetic mice, and randomly allocated to the model control group (MC, administrated with saline by oral gavage) or the prolamin from cooked foxtail millet group (PCFM, administrated with 200 mg/kg BW PCFM by oral gavage). After five weeks’ treatment, the effects of PCFM on the diabetes-related biomarkers, gut microbiota and serum metabolic profiles of diabetic mice were evaluated.
Figure 2After 5 weeks’ treatment, effect of prolamin from cooked foxtail millet (PCFM) administration on levels of (A) Fasting blood glucose (FBG), (B) Insulin, (C) Homeostasis model assessment—islet β cell function (HOMA-β), (D) Oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), (E) Area under curve (AUC), (F) Serum triglyceride (TG), (G) liver TG, (H) Aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and (I) Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) in mice. Values were analyzed by One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Duncan’s post-hoc test and expressed as the mean ± SEM of 8 mice/group. ### p < 0.001, ## p < 0.01, compared to normal control (NC) group, *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, compared to model control (MC) group.
Figure 3After 5 weeks’ treatment, effect of prolamin from cooked foxtail millet (PCFM) supplementation on the Bacteroides/Firmicutes (B/F) ratio (A) and the relative abundance of bacteria at the genus level (B–F) in all groups (n = 7 mice/group). The B/F ratio between two groups was analyzed by Student’s t test. Relative abundance of each bacterium referred to the percent of a specific bacterium abundance in comparison to the sum of all bacteria abundance at the same classification level. Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the significance of relative abundance differences among all groups. # p < 0.05, ## p < 0.01, compared to the normal control (NC) group, * p < 0.05, compared to the model control (MC) group. ns: not significant.
Figure 4Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) score shows the genus LDA score of > 3 (the length of the bar represents the LDA score) (n = 7 mice/group). MC: model control group; NC: normal control group; PCFM: prolamin from cooked foxtail millet group.
Figure 5After 5 weeks’ treatment, effects of oral prolamin from cooked foxtail millet (PCFM) on serum metabolic profile in mice. A–B: principal component analysis (PCA) score plots of serum metabolic profiles in all groups ((A): positive ion; (B): negative ion) (n = 7 mice/group). MC: model control group; NC: normal control group; PC1, PC2: principal component 1 and principal component 2.
Figure 6(A,B): Orthogonal partial least squares discrimination analysis (OPLS-DA) score plots of serum metabolic profiling in normal control (NC) vs. model control (MC) groups under positive-ion (A) and negative-ion (B) modes (n = 7 mice/group). (C,D): Permutation test in positive- (C) and negative (D)-ion modes of the NC vs. MC groups. The abscissa represents the replacement retention of the replacement test. The ordinate indicates the value of R2 (red dots) and Q2 (blue triangle) in the substitution tests. The two dashed lines represent the regression lines of R2 and Q2.
The metabolites that were involved in KEGG pathways.
| Metabolite | MC/NC | PCFM/MC | PCFM/NC | KEGG Pathway |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lysophosphatidylcholine (LysoPC) (16:1(9Z)/0:0) | ↓ *** | ↑ # | ↓ &&& | Glycerophospholipid metabolism |
| Serotonin | ↓ *** | ↑ ## | ↓ && | Tryptophan metabolism |
| Uridine diphosphogalactose (UDP)-L-rhamnose | ↓ * | ↑ # | ↓ | Amino sugar and nucleotide sugar metabolism |
| LysoPC (22:1(13Z)) | ↓ *** | ↑ # | ↓ &&& | Glycerophospholipid metabolism |
| LysoPC (14:1(9Z)) | ↓ ** | ↑ ### | ↑ | Glycerophospholipid metabolism |
| M-Coumaric acid | ↓ ** | ↑ ## | ↓ | Phenylalanine metabolism |
| Tyrosol | ↓ ** | ↑ ## | ↓ | Tyrosine metabolism |
| Lactosylceramide (d18:1/12:0) | ↑ ** | ↓ # | ↑ | Sphingolipid metabolism |
| Prostaglandin J2 | ↑ *** | ↓ ## | ↑ | Arachidonic acid metabolism |
| 9S,11R,15S-trihydroxy-2,3-dinor-13E-prostaenoic acid-cyclo [8 S,12R] | ↑ *** | ↓ # | ↑ | Arachidonic acid metabolism |
| Estriol | ↑ *** | ↓ ### | ↑ | Steroid hormone biosynthesis |
| 9,10,13-Trihydroxyoctadecenoic acid (TriHOME) | ↑ *** | ↓ ### | ↑ | Linoleic acid metabolism |
| 9(S)-Hydroperoxyoctadecatrienoic acid (HpOTrE) | ↓ ### | ↑ | alpha-Linolenic acid metabolism | |
| 19-Hydroxyandrost-4-ene-3,17-dione | ↑ ** | ↓ ### | ↑ | Steroid hormone biosynthesis |
| D-Glucose | ↑ *** | ↓ # | ↑ &&& | Starch and sucrose metabolism; Glycolysis / Gluconeogenesis; Galactose metabolism |
| LysoPC (20:1(11Z)) | ↓ *** | ↑ | ↓ &&& | Glycerophospholipid metabolism |
| LysoPC (20:0/0:0) | ↓ *** | ↑ | ↓ & | Glycerophospholipid metabolism |
| Retinol | ↓ *** | ↑ | ↓ & | Retinol metabolism |
| Glycocholic Acid | ↓ *** | ↑ | ↓ && | Primary bile acid biosynthesis |
| 4-O-alpha-D-Galactopyranuronosyl-D-galacturonic acid | ↓ * | ↑ | ↓ & | Pentose and glucuronate interconversions |
| Sucrose | ↑ ** | ↓ | ↑ && | Galactose metabolism; Starch and sucrose metabolism |
| N6-Acetyl-L-lysine | ↑ ** | ↓ | ↑ | Lysine degradation |
| 5’-Deoxy-5-fluorouridine | ↑ ** | ↓ | ↑ | Xenobiotics biodegradation and metabolism |
| Thiamine | ↑ * | ↑ | ↑ | Thiamine metabolism |
| Acetylcholine | ↓ *** | ↓ | ↓ &&& | Bile secretion; Glycerophospholipid metabolism |
| Phosphoserine | ↑ *** | ↑ | ↑ &&& | Glycine, serine and threonine metabolism; Cysteine and methionine metabolism |
| Phosphatidyl choline (PC) (22:5 (4Z,7Z,10Z,13Z,16Z)/P-18:0) | ↑ # | ↑ && | Linoleic acid metabolism; Arachidonic acid metabolism; alpha-Linolenic acid metabolism |
Note: ↑ and ↓ mean the metabolites up- and downregulated in the model control (MC) vs. normal control (NC) groups and the prolamin from cooked foxtail millet (PCFM) vs. MC groups; * indicates significant difference between NC and MC groups, # indicates significant difference between MC and PCFM groups, & indicates significant difference between NC and PCFM groups. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; # p < 0.05, ## p < 0.01, ### p < 0.001; & p < 0.05, && p < 0.01, &&& p < 0.001. Student’s t test was used to compare the significance of the metabolite level differences among different groups.