| Literature DB >> 33968013 |
Gabriel Dasilva1, Salomé Lois1, Lucía Méndez1, Bernat Miralles-Pérez2, Marta Romeu2, Sara Ramos-Romero3, Josep L Torres3, Isabel Medina1.
Abstract
Adipose tissue is now recognized as an active organ with an important homeostatic function in glucose and lipid metabolism and the development of insulin resistance. The present research investigates the role of lipid mediators and lipid profiling for controlling inflammation and the metabolic normal function of white adipose tissue from rats suffering from diet-induced prediabetes. Additionally, the contribution to the adipose lipidome induced by the consumption of marine ω-3 PUFAs as potential regulators of inflammation is addressed. For that, the effects on the inflammatory response triggered by high-fat high-sucrose (HFHS) diets were studied in male Sprague-Dawley rats. Using SPE-LC-MS/MS-based metabolo-lipidomics, a range of eicosanoids, docosanoids and specialized pro-resolving mediators (SPMs) were measured in white adipose tissue. The inflammatory response occurring in prediabetic adipose tissue was associated with the decomposition of ARA epoxides to ARA-dihydroxides, the reduction of oxo-derivatives and the formation of prostaglandins (PGs). In an attempt to control the inflammatory response initiated, LOX and non-enzymatic oxidation shifted toward the production of the less pro-inflammatory EPA and DHA metabolites rather than the high pro-inflammatory ARA hydroxides. Additionally, the change in LOX activity induced the production of intermediate hydroxides precursors of SPMs as protectins (PDs), resolvins (Rvs) and maresins (MaRs). This compensatory mechanism to achieve the restoration of tissue homeostasis was significantly strengthened through supplementation with fish oils. Increasing proportions of ω-3 PUFAs in adipose tissue significantly stimulated the formation of DHA-epoxides by cytochrome P450, the production of non-enzymatic EPA-metabolites and prompted the activity of 12LOX. Finally, protectin PDX was significantly reduced in the adipose tissue of prediabetic rats and highly enhanced through ω-3 PUFAs supplementation. Taken together, these actively coordinated modifications constitute key mechanisms to restore adipose tissue homeostasis with an important role of lipid mediators. This compensatory mechanism is reinforced through the supplementation of the diet with fish oils with high and balanced contents of EPA and DHA. The study highlights new insides on the targets for effective treatment of incipient diet-induced diabetes and the mechanism underlying the potential anti-inflammatory action of marine lipids.Entities:
Keywords: adipose tissue; inflammation; prediabetes; specialized resolvers; ω3 lipid mediators
Year: 2021 PMID: 33968013 PMCID: PMC8097180 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.608875
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Morphological values, lipid content, insulin resistance and inflammatory parameters from Sprague-Dawley rats with different diets.
| STD | STD+ω3 | HFHS | HFHS+ω3 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| Body weight after 21 weeks feeding1 | 526.25 a | 31.16 | 522.78 a | 39.40 | 568.33 a | 24.25 | 579.89 a | 35.66 |
| Perigonadal Adipose Tissue1* | 8.99 a | 3.16 | 8.53 a | 2.52 | 13.12 b | 3.92 | 13.28 b | 4.41 |
| Adiposity index (%)1* | 1.67 a | 0.44 | 1.65 a | 0.38 | 2.37 b | 0.75 | 2.32 b | 0.69 |
| % FAT CONTENT Erythrocytes* | 2.09 a | 0.24 | 2.04 a | 0.16 | 2.27 b | 0.16 | 2.21 b | 0.21 |
| % FAT CONTENT Plasma*$# | 3.91 a | 0.75 | 3.96 a | 1.28 | 4.34 ab | 1.37 | 2.94 b | 0.84 |
| % FAT CONTENT Liver$ | 7.01 a | 0.51 | 6.36 b | 0.28 | 7.34 a | 0.45 | 6.55 b | 0.38 |
| % FAT CONTENT Kidney*$ | 4.31 a | 0.23 | 4.11 b | 0.24 | 5.65 c | 0.56 | 4.39 a | 0.39 |
| % FAT CONTENT Muscle*$ | 2.51 a | 0.71 | 2.37 b | 0.59 | 3.14 c | 0.99 | 2.51 a | 0.31 |
| % FAT CONTENT Adipose Tissue*$ | 96.32 a | 2.05 | 92.73 b | 3.16 | 99.51 c | 2.03 | 97.01 a | 1.20 |
| Plasma Total Fatty Acids mg/mL*$ | 2.19 a | 0.25 | 1.96 ab | 0.31 | 1.85 ab | 0.21 | 1.70 b | 0.36 |
| Plasma Insulin ng/ml1* | 0.56 a | 0.32 | 0.65 a | 0.19 | 1.81 b | 0.82 | 1.46 b | 0.72 |
| Plasma Glucose mg/ml1 | 63.00 a | 4.84 | 63.44 a | 4.10 | 70.78a | 4.99 | 71.33 a | 5.32 |
| AST/ALT1*$# | 2.64 a | 0.52 | 2.89 a | 0.9 | 3.14 b | 0.92 | 2.37 a | 0.29 |
| IL-6 pg/mL1*$# | 43.60 a | 24.4 | 47.41 a | 8.41 | 47.50 b | 11.01 | 39.3 a | 6.5 |
| Leptin [pg mL−1] 1 | 1104 | 59.7 | 2200.1 | 98.6 | 1792.3 | 65.8 | ||
1These parameters have partially been published in a previous report (20, 23). Adiposity index: (total abdominal fat×100)/body weight. Hepatosomatic index: (liver weight×100)/body weight.
Two-way ANOVA analyses were done. *p < 0.05 significant differences given by the factor “diet” (STD vs. HFHS); $ p < 0.05 significant differences given by the factor “supplement” (control vs ω-3). Superscript # indicates significant interaction (p < 0.05) between the factors diet (ST and HFHS) and supplement (control and ω-3 PUFAs supplement). Means with different superscript (a,b,c,d)indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) (analyzed by post-hoc Fisher LSD).
Values with different superscript letters in the same row indicate significant difference at p < 0.05 between dietary groups (n=9 per group).
Fatty acid composition of the adipose tissue from animals supplemented with STD and HFHS diets divided in controls and ω-3 PUFAs supplemented groups.
| STD | STD-+ω3 | HFHS | HFHS+ω3 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FATTY ACID | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD |
| 1.06a | 0.07 | 1.19b | 0.09 | 6.19c | 0.28 | 6.05 c | 0.18 | |
| 21.23a | 0.70 | 20.90a | 1.01 | 27.37b | 0.81 | 27.99b | 0.63 | |
| 3.95a | 0.78 | 4.64a | 2.37 | 6.31b | 1.08 | 5.73b | 0.56 | |
| 2.26a | 0.26 | 2.25a | 0.36 | 4.12b | 0.41 | 4.35b | 0.31 | |
| 21.95a | 0.52 | 22.09a | 0.66 | 39.02b | 1.13 | 39.50b | 0.93 | |
| 4.85a | 0.31 | 4.82a | 0.32 | 3.64b | 0.25 | 3.88b | 0.07 | |
| 39.79a | 1.35 | 38.39a | 2.36 | 9.46a | 0.26 | 8.57b | 0.25 | |
| 1.60a | 0.08 | 1.62a | 0.08 | 0.66b | 0.07 | 0.61b | 0.07 | |
| 0.14a | 0.02 | 0.16a | 0.04 | 0.00b | 0.00 | 0.00b | 0.00 | |
| 0.66a | 0.10 | 0.64a | 0.31 | 0.13b | 0.05 | 0.12b | 0.01 | |
| <0.01a | 0.00 | 0.13b | 0.02 | <0.01a | 0.00 | <0.01a | 0.00 | |
| 0.18a | 0.11 | 0.21a | 0.07 | 0.00a | 0.00 | 0.00a | 0.00 | |
| 0.17a | 0.03 | 0.36b | 0.04 | <0.01a | 0.00 | 0.06b | 0.03 | |
| 0.12a | 0.03 | 0.50b | 0.03 | <0.01a | 0.00 | 0.09b | 0.02 | |
| 2.19 a | 0.07 | 2.96b | 0.25 | 0.81c | 0.06 | 0.93d | 0.10 | |
| 41.15 ab | 1.26 | 39.78b | 1.83 | 9.70 c | 0.30 | 8.69d | 0.25 | |
| 18.79 a | 1.15 | 13.42 b | 0.86 | 11.98 b | 0.74 | 9.34 c | 0.50 | |
Two-way ANOVA analyses were done. *p < 0.05 significant differences given by the factor “diet” (STD vs. HFHS); $ p < 0.05 significant differences given by the factor “supplement” (control vs ω-3). Superscript # indicates significant interaction (p < 0.05) between the factors diet (ST and HFHS) and supplement (control and ω-3 PUFAs supplement). Means with different superscript (a,b,c,d)indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) (analyzed by post-hoc Fisher LSD).
Results are expressed as percentage of total fatty acids (mg/100mg of total fatty acids). Results are expressed as means and standard deviation (SD). Values with different superscript letters in the same row indicate significant difference at p < 0.05 between dietary groups (n=9 per group).
FAD indexes from total fatty acid data of plasma and white adipose tissue calculated as product/precursor ratio.
| STD | STD+ω3 | HFHS | HFHS+ω3 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCD-16 = [palmitoleic (16:1ω7)/palmític (16:0)] * | 0.068 a | 0.01 | 0.068 a | 0.01 | 0.078 b | 0.01 | 0.109 b | 0.04 |
| SCD-18 = [oleic (18:1ω9)/estearic (18:0)] * | 0.859 a | 0.13 | 0.837 a | 0.13 | 1.597 b | 0.30 | 1.589 b | 0.36 |
| Δ5D = [ARA (20:4ω6)/DGLA (20:3ω6)] *$ | 123.536 a | 11.12 | 70.814 b | 12.92 | 48.031 bc | 17.08 | 31.760 c | 3.17 |
| Δ6D = [DGLA (20:3ω6)/LA (18:2ω6)] *$ | 0.013 a | 0.00 | 0.018 b | 0.01 | 0.053 c | 0.01 | 0.058 c | 0.01 |
| Δ6D = [DHA (22:6ω3)/DPA (22:5ω3)] *$# | 2.948 a | 0.38 | 2.656 a | 0.43 | 4.235 b | 1.01 | 5.808 c | 0.52 |
| Δ5D + Δ6D = [EPA (20:5ω3)/ALA (18:3ω3)] $ | 1.854 a | 0.52 | 2.963 b | 0.77 | 2.308 ab | 0.48 | 6.157 c | 0.87 |
| SCD-16 = [palmitoleic (16:1ω7)/palmític (16:0)] $# | 0.186 a | 0.03 | 0.227 ab | 0.13 | 0.224 b | 0.04 | 0.204 a | 0.01 |
| SCD-18 = [oleic (18:1ω9)/estearic (18:0)] | 9.928 a | 1.13 | 10.201 a | 2.21 | 9.471 a | 0.19 | 9.081 a | 0.39 |
| Δ5D = [ARA (20:4ω6)/DGLA (20:3ω6) *] | 4.999 a | 0.66 | 3.997 a | 0.86 | No detected | – | No detected | No detected |
| Δ6D = [DHA (22:6ω3)/DPA (22:5ω3)] $ | 0.755 a | 0.13 | 1.386 b | 0.13 | No detected | – | 1.512 c | 0.33 |
| Δ6D = [DGLA (20:3ω6)/LA (18:2ω6)] * | 0.003 a | 0.00 | 0.004 a | 0 | 0.000 b | 0.00 | 0.000 b | 0.00 |
| Δ5D + Δ6D = [EPA (20:5ω3)/ALA (18:3ω3)] | 0.000 a | 0.00 | 0.076 b | 0.05 | 0.000 a | 0.00 | 0.000 a | 0.00 |
Two-way ANOVA analyses were done. *p < 0.05 significant differences given by the factor “diet” (STD vs. HFHS); $ p < 0.05 significant differences given by the factor “supplement” (control vs ω-3). Superscript # indicates significant interaction (p < 0.05) between the factors diet (ST and HFHS) and supplement (control and ω-3 PUFAs supplement). Means with different superscript (a,b,c,d)indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) (analyzed by post-hoc Fisher LSD).
Results are expressed as means and standard deviation (SD). Values with different superscript letters in the same row indicate significant difference at p < 0.05 between dietary groups (n=9 per group).
Levels of lipid mediators in white adipose tissue derived from ARA, EPA and DHA.
| STD | STD + ω3 | HFHS | HFHS + ω3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5LOX/GPX | 28.36 a | 1.13 | 18.21 b | 1.27 | 9.72 c | 1.26 | 11.91 c | 1.26 | |
| 5LOX/DHO | 9.44 a | 0.08 | 8.71 a | 0.14 | 8.51 a | 0.07 | 8.80 a | 0.10 | |
| Non enzy | 39.95 a | 1.18 | 18.92 b | 2.88 | 18.59 b | 2.90 | 17.38 b | 2.08 | |
| 12LOX/GPX | 67.88 a | 1.51 | 41.84 b | 4.58 | 34.99 b | 5.43 | 26.56 c | 2.43 | |
| 12LOX/DHO | 39.17 a | 0.47 | 39.98 a | 2.77 | 37.51 b | 1.79 | 40.00 a | 0.74 | |
| 15LOX/GPX | 36.78 a | 1.20 | 17.72 b | 1.60 | 18.65 b | 2.59 | 18.50 b | 1.86 | |
| CYP | 2.70 a | 0.07 | 1.95 b | 0.29 | 2.96c | 0.07 | 0.00 d | 0.00 | |
| CYP | 23.95 a | 0.36 | 18.71 b | 1.52 | 10.56 c | 0.86 | 13.77 c | 0.50 | |
| CYP/sEH | 0.00 a | 0.00 | 0.00 a | 0.00 | 0.00 a | 0.00 | 0.00 a | 0.00 | |
| CYP | 8.49 a | 0.14 | 8.09 a | 0.35 | 6.50 b | 0.22 | 6.78 b | 0.13 | |
| CYP/sEH | 0.00 a | 0.00 | 0.00 a | 0.00 | 0.00 a | 0.00 | 0.00 a | 0.00 | |
| CYP/sEH | 0.06 a | 0.00 | 0.05 a | 0.01 | 0.00 b | 0.00 | 0.00 b | 0.00 | |
| CYP | 1.66 a | 0.14 | 1.27 a | 0.31 | 1.66 a | 0.26 | 1.14 a | 0.26 | |
| CYP/sEH | 0.35 a | 0.04 | 0.25 b | 0.05 | 0.52 c | 0.03 | 0.00 d | 0.00 | |
| COX | 182.51 a | 6.30 | 142.03 b | 18.90 | 164.61 a | 19.37 | 148.44 ab | 9.81 | |
| COX*# | 42.47 a | 1.91 | 62.19 b | 10.26 | 56.67 b | 3.75 | 51.63 ab | 5.43 | |
| COX | 0.23 a | 0.03 | 0.44 b | 0.18 | 0.34 ab | 0.06 | 0.35 ab | 0.18 | |
| 5LOX | 0.00 a | 0.00 | 0.00 a | 0.00 | 0.00 a | 0.00 | 0.00 a | 0.00 | |
| 5LOX/GPX | 1.54 a | 0.24 | 4.18 b | 0.24 | 0.00 c | 0.00 | 0.00 c | 0.00 | |
| Non enzy | 2.15 a | 0.38 | 3.72 b | 0.27 | 1.84 a | 0.27 | 3.27 b | 0.25 | |
| 12LOX | 22.43 a | 3.32 | 62.30 b | 17.53 | 19.68 a | 5.68 | 19.98 a | 2.80 | |
| 12LOX/GPX | 3.99 a | 0.61 | 12.13 b | 1.20 | 1.97 a | 0.44 | 6.84 b | 0.78 | |
| 15LOX | 8.46 a | 0.73 | 8.71 a | 0.64 | 5.16 a | 0.03 | 4.69 a | 0.56 | |
| 15LOX/GPX | 4.66 a | 0.81 | 7.09 b | 0.57 | 3.96 a | 0.39 | 6.34 b | 0.51 | |
| Non enzy | 4.64 a | 0.27 | 5.66 a | 0.63 | 2.43 a | 0.09 | 9.04 b | 0.68 | |
| CYP/sEH | 0.00 a | 0.00 | 0.00 a | 0.00 | 0.00 a | 0.00 | 0.00 a | 0.00 | |
| 5LOX/GPX | 3.17 ab | 0.27 | 3.57 b | 0.20 | 2.44 a | 0.07 | 3.75 b | 0.30 | |
| 12LOX/GPX | 1.52 a | 0.23 | 2.68 b | 0.15 | 1.06 c | 0.19 | 2.94 b | 0.34 | |
| 12LOX/GPX | 20.85 a | 2.72 | 27.96 b | 0.34 | 18.60 a | 2.69 | 28.75 b | 2.36 | |
| 15LOX/GPX | 24.46 a | 3.20 | 33.54 b | 2.26 | 29.78 a | 2.51 | 37.63 b | 1.85 | |
| 15LOX/GPX | 1.31 a | 0.32 | 0.99 a | 0.00 | 0.22 b | 0.03 | 1.34 a | 0.15 | |
| CYP | 3.76 a | 0.10 | 4.62 b | 0.24 | 4.01 a | 0.28 | 4.64 ab | 0.26 | |
| CYP | 2.45 a | 0.11 | 2.81 b | 0.09 | 1.95 a | 0.14 | 2.54 b | 0.18 | |
| CYP | 1.22 a | 0.07 | 1.75 b | 0.08 | 1.09 a | 0.10 | 1.45 b | 0.11 | |
| CYP | 5.20 a | 0.42 | 5.86 ab | 0.30 | 0.00 b | 0.00 | 6.60 c | 0.51 | |
| CYP/sEH | 3.14 a | 0.06 | 3.73 a | 0.24 | 0.00 b | 0.00 | 0.00 b | 0.00 | |
Two-way ANOVA analyses were done. *p < 0.05 significant differences given by the factor “diet” (STD vs. HFHS); $ p < 0.05 significant differences given by the factor “supplement” (control vs ω-3). Superscript # indicates significant interaction (p <0.05) between the factors diet (ST and HFHS) and supplement (control and ω-3 PUFAs supplement). Means with different superscript (a,b,c,d)indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) (analyzed by post-hoc Fisher LSD).
Results are expressed as ng/mL. Results are expressed as means with their standard errors of the mean (SEM); n=9 per group.
Percent distribution of ARA, EPA and DHA in total PUFAs present in adipose tissue.
| STD | STD+ω3 | HFHS | HFHS+ω3 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| % ARA$ | 74.05 a | 1.21 | 52.30 b | 0.98 | 73.75 a | 2.07 | 50.79 b | 1.53 |
| % EPA*$# | 6.30 a | 0.88 | 14.71 b | 1.43 | 4.41 c | 0.39 | 12.50 c | 0.86 |
| % DHA$ | 19.64 a | 0.59 | 32.98 b | 1.22 | 21.82 a | 1.01 | 36.73 b | 1.25 |
| % ARA hydroxides in total hydroxides*$# | 72.39 a | 2.12 | 54.00 b | 1.62 | 57.76 b | 1.74 | 42.99 c | 2.14 |
| % EPA hydroxides in total hydroxides$# | 6.99 a | 0.17 | 8.90 b | 1.07 | 6.93 a | 0.22 | 14.74 c | 0.23 |
| % DHA hydroxides in total hydroxides*$# | 20.60 a | 1.44 | 37.09 b | 1.17 | 35.29 b | 0.63 | 42.25 c | 1.97 |
Two-way ANOVA analyses were done. *p < 0.05 significant differences given by the factor “diet” (STD vs. HFHS); $ p < 0.05 significant differences given by the factor “supplement” (control vs ω-3). Superscript # indicates significant interaction (p < 0.05) between the factors diet (ST and HFHS) and supplement (control and ω-3 PUFAs supplement). Means with different superscript (a,b,c,d)indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) (analyzed by post-hoc Fisher LSD).
Percent distribution of ARA, EPA and DHA monohydroxides in adipose tissue. Results are expressed as means and standard deviation(SD). Values with different superscript letters in the same row indicate significant difference at p < 0.05 between dietary groups (n=9 per group).
Figure 1Comparison of lipid mediators formed in the perigonal adipose tissue of rats fed STD, STD+ω3, HFHS or HFHS+ω3 diets. (A). Balance of several EPA/ARA LOX-Hydroxides, particularly, 5HEPE/5HETE, 12HEPE/12HETE and 15HEPE/15HETE measured in adipose tissue from rats fed STD, STD+ω3, HFHS or HFHS+ω3 diets. (B). Balance of several Hydroxides/Hydroperoxides from EPA, particularly 12HEPE/12HpHEPE and 15HEPE/15HpHEPE, measured in in adipose tissue from rats fed STD, STD+ω3, HFHS or HFHS+ω3 diets. (C). Percentage of 11HETE in total ARA Hydroxides and percentage of 11HEPE in total EPA Hydroxides measured in adipose tissue from rats fed STD or HFHS diets. (D). Percentage of several DHA Hydroxides, particularly 4HDoHE, 11HDoHE, 14HDoHE and17HDoHE, in total LOX-Hydroxides measured in adipose tissue from rats fed STD or HFHS diets (n=9 per group). *Significant differences among groups (p < 0.05).