| Literature DB >> 34959957 |
Tzu-Chien Chen1, Yu-Yu Ho1, Rui-Chian Tang2, Yong-Chen Ke1, Jhih-Ni Lin1, I-Hsuan Yang1, Feng-Huei Lin1,3.
Abstract
Obesity is characterized as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation harmful to one's health, linked to hormonal imbalances, cardiovascular illness, and coronary artery disease. Since the disease stems mainly from overconsumption, studies have aimed to control intestinal absorption as a route for treatment. In this study, chitosan-thioglycolic acid (CT) was developed as a physical barrier in the gastrointestinal tracts to inhibit nutrient uptake. CT exhibits a superior mucoadhesive property compared to chitosan both in vitro and in vivo for the ability to form disulfide bonds with the intestinal mucosa. For CT as a potential drug delivery platform, hesperidin, a herb for bodyweight control in traditional Chinese medication, is encapsulated in CT and can be released consistently from this absorption barrier. In animal studies, CT encapsulated with hesperidin (CTH) not only results in a weight-controlling effect but limits adipose accumulation by hindering absorption, suggesting a potential role in obesity treatment. Neither CT nor CTH exhibit cytotoxicity or produce adverse immunological reactions in vivo.Entities:
Keywords: chitosan; hesperidin; obesity; thiol
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34959957 PMCID: PMC8706427 DOI: 10.3390/nu13124405
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Material molecular structure analysis of CT. (a) The FTIR result of chitosan and CT. (b) 1Hydrogen NMR spectra confirmed the structure of chitosan and CT. EDS results showed that there were sulfur signals on the surface of CT (d) but not on chitosan (c).
Figure 2Evaluation of biocompatibility and mucoadhesion of CT. (a) WST-1 test to evaluate cell viability of CT and CTH with L929 cell. (n = 6, *** p < 0.001) (b) Cytotoxicity of CT and CTH tested using live/dead staining. Living cells were stained with calcein AM and dead cells with homodimer-1 (EthD-1) (scale bar = 100 μm). (c) In vitro adhesion evaluation of chitosan -FITC (CF) and CT-FITC (CTF). The fluorescence microscope was used to observe material adhesion on mucus. (d) Fluorescence quantification of the in vitro adhesion test. One-way ANOVA (n = 3, ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001).
Figure 3Oral glucose tolerance and in vivo adhesion evaluation. (a) Blood glucose response post-CT gavage (250 mg/kg). Two-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons (n = 6, * p < 0.1 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001). (b) iAUC of the OGTT curves. One-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons (n = 6, * p < 0.1 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001 compared to positive control) (c) Gastrointestinal tracts of mice were harvested from the stomach to cecum after gavage with CF or CTF (250 mg/kg) at each time point followed by IVIS in vivo imaging systems.
Figure 4Evaluation of the bodyweight and fat accumulation (a) Eight-week weight record for normal diet group (ND), high-fat diet group (HFD), high-fat diet with CT group (HFD + CT), and high-fat diet with CT combined hesperidin (HFD + CTH). Two-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons (n = 6, *** p < 0.001 for HFD + CT vs. HFD). (b) CT images of mice with a resolution voxel spacing of 35 μm. (c) Representative images of epididymal white adipose tissue (eWAT) and subcutaneous white adipose tissue (sWAT). (d) Weight of eWAT and sWAT. One-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons compared with HFD (n = 6 for each group, *** p < 0.001).
Figure 5Results of hematoxylin and eosin stain. HE staining for (a) liver and (b) epididymal white adipose tissue (eWAT) (scale bar = 100 μm).
Serum biochemical assessment.
| ND | HFD | HFD + CT | HFD + CTH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TC (mg/dL) | 8 | 1 | 14 | 14 |
| TG (mg/dL) | 12 | 116 | 105.3 | |
| HDL (mg/dL) | 7 | 14 | 123 | 12 |
| LDL (mg/dL) | 8 | 15 | 13.9 | 13 |
| AST (U/L) | 108.1 | 286.3 | 153.4 | 88.24 |
| ALT (U/L) | 35.62 | 40.63 | 37.64 | 33.73 |
| BUN (mg/dL) | 20.86 | 19.48 | 18 | 17 |
| Crea (mg/dL) | 0.25 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.23 |
One-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons (n = 6 for each group, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.005 compared to ND, ### p < 0.005 compared to HFD).
Complete blood count.
| ND | HFD | HFD + CT | HFD + CTH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RBC (M/μL) | 10.25 ± 0.62 | 9.975 ± 0.261 | 10.71 ± 0.213 | 10.48 ± 0.376 |
| HGB (g/dL) | 14.57 ± 0.85 | 14.25 ± 0.212 | 15.41 ± 0.3586 | 15.10 ± 0.916 |
| HCT (%) | 55.71 ± 3.75 | 53.05 ± 1.061 | 53.62 ± 1.45 | 54.50 ± 3.830 |
| MCV (fL) | 52.98 ± 1.033 | 53.20 ± 0.282 | 50.06 ± 1.276 | 51.93 ± 1.790 |
| MCH (pg) | 14.62 ± 0.25 | 14.30 ± 0.141 | 14.39 ± 0.209 | 14.40 ± 0.360 |
| MCHC (g/dL) | 27.61 ± 0.516 | 26.90 ± 0.141 | 28.77 ± 0.9447 | 27.70 ± 0.264 |
| RET (K/μL) | 429.4 ± 106.8 | 514.8 ± 18.24 | 490.3 ± 79.54 | 502.8 ± 113.9 |
| PLT (K/μL) | 1124 ± 259.0 | 802.0 ± 114.6 | 1258 ± 140.30 | 928.7 ± 328.7 |
| WBC (K/μL) | 4.631 ± 2.186 | 3.650 ± 0.480 | 6.193 ± 1.229 | 2.547 ± 0.140 |
| NEUT (K/μL) | 1.181 ± 1.015 | 0.755 ± 0.304 | 1.324 ± 0.57 | 0.450 ± 0.155 |
| LYMPH (K/μL) | 3.263 ± 1.568 | 2.570 ± 0.08485 | 7.523 ± 2.474 | 1.887 ± 0.2228 |
| MONO (K/μL) | 0.1589 ± 0.1776 | 0.190 ± 0.084 | 0.257 ± 0.150 | 0.1300 ± 0.079 |
| EO (K/μL) | 0.026 ± 0.018 | 0.1267 ± 0.006 | 0.233 ± | 0.076 ± 0.035 |