| Literature DB >> 33204402 |
Xiaoqin Ding1, Tunyu Jian1, Jiawei Li1, Han Lv1, Bei Tong1, Jing Li2, Xiuhua Meng1, Bingru Ren1, Jian Chen1,2.
Abstract
This study examines the effects of chicoric acid (CA) onEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33204402 PMCID: PMC7657699 DOI: 10.1155/2020/9734560
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Figure 1Effects of CA on hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, and inflammation in HFD mice. CA affected body weight (a), white adipose (b), blood glucose (c), serum TC (d), TG (e), HDL-C (f), LDL-C (g), and serum inflammatory cytokines (h) in HFD-fed mice. C57BL/6 mice were randomly divided into four groups: in the ND group, mice were fed with a ND and received 0.9% NaCl solution. In the HFD group, mice were fed with a HFD diet and received 0.9% NaCl solution. In the two HFD+CA groups, mice were fed with a HFD and received 15 mg/kg or 30 mg/kg of CA once daily by oral gavage. Data represent the mean ± SEM, n = 8 per group. +++p < 0.001 vs. ND group. ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, and ∗∗∗p < 0.001 vs. HFD group.
Figure 2CA alleviated hepatic lipid accumulation, oxidative stress, inflammation, and liver injury in HFD-fed mice. (a) Hepatic ORO staining (scale bar: 100 μM) and quantitative analysis of lipid content (n = 6). (b) Histological analysis of liver tissues by H&E staining (scale bar: 100 μM); red arrow: cytoplasmic vacuolation; black arrow: inflammatory cell infiltration. (c) NAFLD activity score determined according to the liver section histology analysis (n = 6). (d, e) Serum SOD and MDA activity levels in mice (n = 8). (f) The in situ ROS of the liver detected by DHE staining (scale bar: 50 μM) and the fluorescence intensity analysis (n = 4). (g, h) Serum GPT-ALT and GOT-AST levels in mice (n = 8). Data represent the mean ± SEM. ++p < 0.01 and +++p < 0.001 vs. ND group. ∗∗p < 0.01 and ∗∗∗p < 0.001 vs. HFD group.
Figure 3CA suppressed the hepatic NFκB pathway and liver inflammation in HFD mice. (a) Hepatic levels of IL-2, IL-6, IL-1β, and TNF-α (n = 8). (b) Hepatic p-IKKα/β, p-IκBα, and p-NFκB protein levels in mice (n = 3). Data represent the mean ± SEM. ++p < 0.01 and +++p < 0.001 vs. ND group. ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, and ∗∗∗p < 0.001 vs. HFD group.
Figure 4CA ameliorated lipid accumulation and oxidative stress, as well as inhibited the NFκB pathway in PA-induced HepG2 cells. (a) Cell viability after treatment with different concentrations of CA from 0 to 250 μM for 24 h (n = 8). (b) lipid droplets detected by ORO staining (scale bar: 100 μM) and quantitative analysis of lipid content in HepG2 cells (n = 4). (c) Intracellular TC and TG levels in HepG2 cells (n = 8). (d) The intracellular O2·− and mitochondrial ROS detected by DHE (scale bar: 100 μM), MitoSOX Red staining (scale bar: 50 μM), and the fluorescence intensity analyses in PA-treated HepG2 cells (n = 8). (e) ROS production detected by DCFH-DA detector (n = 8). (f) The protein levels of p-IKKα/β, p-IκBα, and p-NFκB in HepG2 cells (n = 3). Data represent the mean ± SEM. ++p < 0.01 and +++p < 0.001 vs. normal group. ∗∗p < 0.01 and ∗∗∗p < 0.001 vs. PA group.
Figure 5CA regulated keap1/Nrf2 signaling in the liver of HFD mice and PA-treated HepG2 cells. (a, b) The protein levels of keap1, nuclear Nrf2, SOD1, SOD2, and HO-1 in the liver or HepG2 cells. Data represent the mean ± SEM, n = 3 per group. ++p < 0.01 and +++p < 0.001 vs. ND or normal group. ∗∗p < 0.01 and ∗∗∗p < 0.001 vs. HFD or PA group.
Figure 6CA suppressed oxidative stress and inflammation via AMPK activation. (a, b) Effects of CA on the phosphorylation of APMK in the liver and HepG2 cells (n = 3). (c) The protein levels of keap1, nuclear Nrf2, and p-NFκB in HepG2 cells (n = 3). (d) ROS production of cells detected by DHE staining (scale bar: 100 μM) and the fluorescence intensity analysis (n = 4). (e) The protein levels of SOD1, SOD2, HO-1, and p-NFκB in HepG2 cells (n = 3). (f) ROS production in HepG2 cells detected by DCFH-DA detector (n = 8). Data represent the mean ± SEM. ++p < 0.01 and +++p < 0.001 vs. ND or normal group. ∗p < 0.05 and ∗∗p < 0.01 vs. HFD or PA group.
Figure 7Effect of CA (30 mg/kg) treatment on the relative abundance of gut microbial community in HFD mice. (a) Rarefaction curve for each sample (ND1-ND8: mice fed with a ND and received 0.9% NaCl solution; HFD1-8: mice fed with a HFD diet and received 0.9% NaCl solution; CA1-8: mice fed with a HFD and received 30 mg/kg of CA once daily by oral gavage). (b) Venn diagram of the overlap of the OTUs in the gut microbiota in different treatments. (c) The bacterial richness in gut estimated by alpha-diversity of chao1, observed_species, PD_whole_tree, and Shannon indexes. The β-diversity analysis of nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) (d) and principle coordinate analysis (PCoA) (e). Data represent the mean ± SEM, n = 8. +p < 0.05 vs. ND group.
Figure 8Effect of CA treatment on the population structure of gut microbiota in HFD mice. (a) Bar plot analysis of microbial community at the phylum level in mice. (b) The alteration in the Firmicutes-to-Bacteroidetes ratio in mice. Bar plot analysis (c) and heat map analysis (d) of microbial community at the genus level in mice. Data represent the mean ± SEM, n = 8 per group. ++p < 0.001 vs. ND group. ∗p < 0.05 vs. HFD group.