| Literature DB >> 34070818 |
Kanokwan Nahok1,2, Jutarop Phetcharaburanin1, Jia V Li3, Atit Silsirivanit1, Raynoo Thanan1, Piyanard Boonnate1, Jarus Joonhuathon4, Amod Sharma2, Sirirat Anutrakulchai2,5, Carlo Selmi6,7, Ubon Cha'on1,2.
Abstract
The short- and long-term consumption of monosodium glutamate (MSG) increases urinary pH but the effects on the metabolic pathways in the liver, kidney and the gut microbiota remain unknown. To address this issue, we investigated adult male Wistar rats allocated to receive drinking water with or without 1 g% MSG for 2 weeks (n = 10, each). We performed a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy-based metabolomic study of the jejunum, liver, and kidneys, while faecal samples were collected for bacterial DNA extraction to investigate the gut microbiota using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We observed significant changes in the liver of MSG-treated rats compared to controls in the levels of glucose, pyridoxine, leucine, isoleucine, valine, alanine, kynurenate, and nicotinamide. Among kidney metabolites, the level of trimethylamine (TMA) was increased, and pyridoxine was decreased after MSG-treatment. Sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene revealed that MSG-treated rats had increased Firmicutes, the gut bacteria associated with TMA metabolism, along with decreased Bifidobacterium species. Our data support the impact of MSG consumption on liver and kidney metabolism. Based on the gut microbiome changes, we speculate that TMA and its metabolites such as trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) may be mediators of the effects of MSG on the kidney health.Entities:
Keywords: gut microbiota; metabolic pathway; metabolomics; microbiome; monosodium glutamate; trimethylamine
Year: 2021 PMID: 34070818 PMCID: PMC8229789 DOI: 10.3390/nu13061865
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1(A) Food intake (B) Body weight (C) Water intake and (D) Urine output of male Wistar rats supplemented with 1 g% MSG and control animals (n = 10 per group) at baseline and at 2 weeks. Data are shown as mean ± SD and p-values calculated by Student’s t-test, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001).
Figure 2Principal component analysis (left panel) and O-PLS-DA score plot (right panel) of tissues of MSG-treated (Red) and control groups (Blue). (A,B) Liver; (C,D) kidney; and (E,F) jejunum.% PC represents variation explained by each principal component and Q2 represents predictive ability of the model.
Figure 3OPLS-corresponding coefficient loading plots of liver (A) and kidney (B). Positive and negative signals denote significant metabolites in MSG-treated rats (downwards pointing) and control groups (upwards pointing) with intensity indicated by colour (red is highly correlated and blue is weakly correlated) and also correlation per metabolite. Abbreviations: Ile, isoleucine; NAG, N-acetylglycoprotein; IrI, correlation coefficients.
Relative changes in liver and kidney metabolites of control and MSG-treated rats, using the 1H NMR profiles.
| Metabolites | Chemical SHIFT | MSG Induced Metabolic Changes Compared to Control | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (−) Control vs. (+) MSG | (−) Control vs. (+) MSG | ||
| Leucine | −0.7823 | - | |
| Isoleucine | 0.9644 (t), | −0.8539 | - |
| Valine | 0.9644 (t), 1.006 (d), | −0.7768 | - |
| Alanine | −0.6109 | - | |
| −0.8440 | - | ||
| Acetone | −0.8654 | - | |
| Trimethylamine | - | 0.6579 | |
| 1,3-dimethylurate | −0.7834 | - | |
| Glucose | 3.27 (t), | 0.4626 | - |
| Unknown 1 | 3.426 (m), 3.521 (m), | 0.5254 | - |
| Unknown 2 | 0.7485 | - | |
| Histamine | 3.095 (m), 3.306 (t), | −0.8240 | - |
| Pyridoxine | 0.9173 | −0.6069 | |
| 2-Deoxyuridine | 3.558 (d), 3.719 (m), 3.833 (m), 5.244 (d), | 0.8117 | - |
| Xanthine | −0.7847 | - | |
| Kynurenate | −0.6075 | - | |
| Inosine | 6.099 (d), 8.241 (s), | 0.5690 | - |
| Nicotinamide | −0.6430 | - | |
R2X and Q2Y show the variance explained and predicted by each model while p-values for all models were derived from a permutation test (n = 500). (+) Indicates a higher correlation, whereas (−) indicates a lower correlation of urinary metabolites after MSG consumption. The bolded chemical shift per metabolite was used as the STOCSY driver peak and for deriving the correlation and p-value. Abbreviations: s, singlet; d, doublet; t, triplet; m, multiple.
Figure 4Faecal microbial composition at the different taxonomic levels in MSG-treated (M1–M10) and control (C1–C10) rats. (A = phylum, B = class, C = order, D = family, E = genus and F = species). Others indicate other bacteria and unidentified bacteria <5%.
Figure 5Heatmap of relative operational taxonomic unit (OTU) abundance at the phylum level (A), and genus level (B) from faeces samples of control (n = 10) and the MSG group (n = 10). The colour key corresponds to percent relative abundance of the gut microbiota in OTU at each expression level.
Figure 6Schematic illustration of changes in metabolic pathways as observed from tissues and biofluid metabolites analysis of Wistar rats. Red indicates higher relative concentration, whereas blue indicates lower relative concentration of metabolites in control rats compared with MSG-treated rats.