| Literature DB >> 35055185 |
Erin Vanessa LaRae Smith1,2, Rebecca Maree Dyson1,2, Christina M G Vanderboor3, Ousseynou Sarr3, Jane Anderson4, Mary J Berry1,2, Timothy R H Regnault5, Lifeng Peng6, Clint Gray1,2.
Abstract
Excess dietary fructose is a major public health concern, yet little is known about its influence on offspring development and later-life disease when consumed in excess during pregnancy. To determine whether increased maternal fructose intake could have long-term consequences on offspring health, we investigated the effects of 10% w/v fructose water intake during preconception and pregnancy in guinea pigs. Female Dunkin Hartley guinea pigs were fed a control diet (CD) or fructose diet (FD; providing 16% of total daily caloric intake) ad libitum 60 days prior to mating and throughout gestation. Dietary interventions ceased at day of delivery. Offspring were culled at day 21 (D21) (weaning) and at 4 months (4 M) (young adult). Fetal exposure to excess maternal fructose intake significantly increased male and female triglycerides at D21 and 4 M and circulating palmitoleic acid and total omega-7 through day 0 (D0) to 4 M. Proteomic and functional analysis of significantly differentially expressed proteins revealed that FD offspring (D21 and 4 M) had significantly increased mitochondrial metabolic activities of β-oxidation, electron transport chain (ETC) and oxidative phosphorylation and reactive oxygen species production compared to the CD offspring. Western blotting analysis of both FD offspring validated the increased protein abundances of mitochondrial ETC complex II and IV, SREBP-1c and FAS, whereas VDAC1 expression was higher at D21 but lower at 4 M. We provide evidence demonstrating offspring programmed hepatic mitochondrial metabolism and de novo lipogenesis following excess maternal fructose exposure. These underlying asymptomatic programmed pathways may lead to a predisposition to metabolic dysfunction later in life.Entities:
Keywords: developmental programming; excess fructose intake; hepatic metabolism; maternal fructose; mitochondrial function; mitochondrial metabolism
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35055185 PMCID: PMC8780605 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23020999
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Weanling (D21) to adult (4 M) offspring weight gain from week 3 to week 16. CD males (n = 7); FD males (n = 7); control females (n = 7) and fructose females (n = 7). Significant effects were shown in the sex of offspring weight gain. All data were analysed using a 2 × 2 factorial design with repeated measures GEE, diet*sex*time*interaction included as factors (general analysis of variance) using IBM SPSS statistics 25. Data presented as group mean ± SEM. * denotes significance of p < 0.0001.
Adult offspring plasma metabolites at month 4.
| Adult Offspring | Sex | Month 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Fructose | ||
| TAG (mmol/L) | Male | 0.55 ± 0.05 | 0.62 ± 0.05 * |
| Female | 0.69 ± 0.05 * | 1.05 ± 0.05 ** | |
| CHOL (mmol/L) | Male | 0.72 ± 0.05 | 0.98 ± 0.05 |
| Female | 0.82 ± 0.05 * | 1.12 ± 0.05 * | |
| LDL (mmol/L) | Male | 0.67 ± 0.05 | 0.71 ± 0.05 |
| Female | 0.88 ± 0.05 * | 0.96 ± 0.05 * | |
| FRUC (umol/L) | Male | 240.16 ± 6.57 | 222.57 ± 6.57 |
| Female | 239.00 ± 6.57 | 270.80 ± 6.57 * | |
| ALP (U/L) | Male | 13.33 ± 1.37 | 4.88 ± 1.37 * |
| Female | 5.16 ± 1.37 | 3.50 ± 1.37 * | |
| HDL (mmol/L) | Male | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.41 ± 0.00 |
| Female | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.05 ± 0.00 | |
| UA (µmol/L | Male | 16.33 ± 2.18 | 24.88 ± 2.18 |
| Female | 21.50 ± 2.18 | 26.83 ± 2.18 | |
| LIP (U/L) | Male | 6.20 ± 0.81 | 10.18 ± 0.81 |
| Female | 6.88 ± 0.81 | 07.31 ± 0.81 | |
| hs-CRP (mg/L) | Male | 0.10 ± 0.01 | 0.09 ± 0.01 |
| Female | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | |
| ALT (U/L) | Male | 72.82 ± 9.13 | 99.33 ± 9.13 |
| Female | 66.50 ± 9.13 | 91.51 ± 9.13 | |
| GGT (U/L) | Male | 171.80 ± 15.93 | 168.85 ± 15.93 |
| Female | 89.40 ± 15.93 | 156.75 ± 15.93 | |
| Leptin (ng/nL) | Male | 4.85 ± 0.41 | 3.98 ± 0.41 |
| Female | 3.93 ± 0.41 | 4.34 ± 0.41 | |
CD males (n = 7); FD males (n = 9); CD females (n = 7) and FD females (n = 6). All data were analysed using a 2 × 2 factorial design with diet*sex*interaction included as factors (general analysis of variance) using IBM SPSS statistics 25. Data presented as group mean ± SEM. * denotes significance of p < 0.05; ** denotes significance of p < 0.0001.
Free fatty acid concentrations in fructose adult offspring whole blood at month 4.
| Adult Offspring Whole Blood | Sex | Month 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Fructose | ||
| Palmitoleic acid (16:1n-7) | Male | 0.89 ± 0.04 | 1.11 ± 0.04 * |
| Female | 1.04 ± 0.04 | 0.88 ± 0.04 * | |
| Total Omega-7 | Male | 1.90 ± 0.05 | 2.14 ± 0.05 * |
| Female | 2.00 ± 0.05 | 1.83 ± 0.05 * | |
| ALA (18:3n-3) | Male | 2.41 ± 0.11 | 1.91 ± 0.11 * |
| Female | 2.06 ± 0.11 | 2.50 ± 0.11 * | |
| Total Omega-3 | Male | 5.00 ± 0.12 | 4.66 ± 0.12 * |
| Female | 4.58 ± 0.12 | 5.28 ± 0.12 * | |
| Total Monosaturated fats | Male | 13.28 ± 0.42 | 14.57 ± 0.42 * |
| Female | 15.45 ± 0.42 | 13.31 ± 0.42 * | |
| EPA (20:5n-3) | Male | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.01 |
| Female | 0.22 ± 0.01 * | 0.20 ± 0.01 * | |
| LA (18:2n-6) | Male | 19.86 ± 0.40 | 19.31 ± 0.40 |
| Female | 18.05 ± 0.40 * | 21.04 ± 0.40 * | |
| Total Saturates | Male | 48.09 ± 0.32 * | 48.52 ± 0.32 * |
| Female | 46.92 ± 0.32 | 46.65 ± 0.32 | |
| Myristic acid (14:0) | Male | 1.04 ± 0.04 | 0.17 ± 0.04 * |
| Female | 0.95 ± 0.04 | 0.80 ± 0.04 * | |
| Arachidic acid (20:0) | Male | 0.68 ± 0.19 | 0.76 ± 0.19 * |
| Female | 0.79 ± 0.19 | 0.62 ± 0.19 * | |
| Total Trans Fatty acids | Male | 0.65 ± 0.09 | 1.01 ± 0.09 * |
| Female | 0.68 ± 0.09 | 1.15 ± 0.09 * | |
| Gondoic Acid (20:1n-9) | Male | 0.48 ± 0.08 | 1.14 ± 0.08 * |
| Female | 0.83 ± 0.08 | 0.52 ± 0.08 * | |
| GLA (18:3n-6) | Male | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.01 * |
| Female | 0.18 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.01 * | |
| DGLA (20:3n-6) | Male | 0.36 ± 0.01 | 0.37 ± 0.01 |
| Female | 0.43 ± 0.01 * | 0.43 ± 0.01 * | |
| Margaric acid (17:0) | Male | 1.45 ± 0.02 | 1.45 ± 0.02 |
| Female | 1.36 ± 0.02 | 1.37 ± 0.02 | |
| DHA (22:6n-3) | Male | 0.45 ± 0.02 | 0.54 ± 0.02 |
| Female | 0.56 ± 0.02 | 0.56 ± 0.02 | |
| Pentadecanoic acid (15:0) | Male | 0.84 ± 0.04 | 0.90 ± 0.04 |
| Female | 0.83 ± 0.04 | 0.69 ± 0.04 | |
| dma16:0 | Male | 0.40 ± 0.06 | 0.72 ± 0.06 |
| Female | 0.50 ± 0.06 | 0.44 ± 0.06 | |
| Total Omega-6 | Male | 31.32 ± 0.49 | 31.07 ± 0.49 |
| Female | 30.83 ± 0.49 | 33.58 ± 0.49 | |
| Vaccenic acid (t18:1n-7) | Male | 0.28 ± 0.01 | 0.36 ± 0.01 |
| Female | 0.28 ± 0.01 | 0.31 ± 0.01 | |
| Palmitic acid (16:0) | Male | 15.50 ± 0.19 | 15.26 ± 0.19 |
| Female | 15.20 ± 0.19 | 15.64 ± 0.19 | |
| Elaidic acid (t18:1n-9) | Male | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 0.19 ± 0.01 |
| Female | 0.24 ± 0.01 | 0.20 ± 0.01 | |
| dma18:0 | Male | 0.42 ± 0.08 | 0.85 ± 0.08 |
| Female | 0.45 ± 0.08 | 0.54 ± 0.08 | |
| Behenic acid (22:0) | Male | 0.94 ± 0.04 | 0.94 ± 0.04 |
| Female | 1.04 ± 0.04 | 0.92 ± 0.04 | |
| Adrenic acid (22:4n-6) + Docosatrienoate acid (22:3n-3) | Male | 2.32 ± 0.05 | 2.27 ± 0.05 |
| AA (20:4n-6) | Male | 8.62 ± 0.15 | 8.47 ± 0.15 |
| Female | 8.57 ± 0.15 | 8.97 ± 0.15 | |
| DPA (22:5n-3) | Male | 2.15 ± 0.06 | 1.91 ± 0.06 |
| Female | 1.97 ± 0.06 | 1.97 ± 0.06 | |
| Cis-Vaccenic acid (18:1n-7) | Male | 0.97 ± 0.01 | 0.98 ± 0.01 |
| Female | 0.97 ± 0.01 | 0.97 ± 0.01 | |
| Eicosadienoic acid (20:2n-6) | Male | 0.77 ± 0.02 | 0.74 ± 0.02 |
| Female | 0.66 ± 0.02 | 0.71 ± 0.02 | |
| Lignoceric acid (24:0) | Male | 1.65 ± 0.06 | 1.67 ± 0.06 |
| Female | 1.79 ± 0.06 | 1.77 ± 0.06 | |
| Stearic acid (18:0) | Male | 24.75 ± 0.32 | 25.33 ± 0.32 |
| Female | 23.47 ± 0.32 | 24.17 ± 0.32 | |
| Oleic acid (18:1n-9) | Male | 9.59 ± 0.18 | 9.77 ± 0.18 |
| Female | 10.16 ± 0.18 | 10.40 ± 0.18 | |
| Total Omega-9 | Male | 10.42 ± 0.19 | 10.94 ± 0.19 |
| Female | 11.46 ± 0.19 | 10.95 ± 0.19 | |
CD males (n = 7); FD males (n = 9); CD females (n = 7) and FD females (n = 6). All data were analysed using a 2 × 2 factorial design with diet*sex*interaction included as factors (general analysis of variance) using IBM SPSS statistics 25. Data presented as group mean ± SEM. * denotes significance of p < 0.05; * denotes significance of p < 0.0001.
Figure 2Free fatty acid (FFA) concentrations in the blood of adult (4 M) offspring. CD males (n = 7); FD males (n = 9); CD females (n = 7) and FD females (n = 6). Figure represents offspring month 4 whole blood FFA. Palmitoleic acid (16:1n-7), total omega-7 (ω-7), alpha linolenic acid (ALA), total omega-3 (ω-7). All data were analysed using a 2 × 2 factorial design with diet*sex*interaction included as factors (general analysis of variance) using IBM SPSS statistics 25. Data presented as group mean ± SEM. * denotes significance of p < 0.05.
Figure 3(A–D) Weanling and adult offspring hepatic mitochondrial electron transport and oxidative phosphorylation complexes I, II, III, IV and ATP synthase. Weanling offspring control males (n = 6); fructose males (n = 6); control females (n = 6) and fructose females (n = 6). (A) Represents weanling offspring hepatic mitochondrial complex-I relative protein abundance and Western blot image at D21. (B) Represents weanling offspring hepatic mitochondrial complex-II relative protein abundance and Western blot image at D21. (C) Represents weanling offspring hepatic mitochondrial complex-III relative protein abundance and Western blot image at D21. (D) Represents weanling offspring hepatic mitochondrial complex-IV relative protein abundance and Western blot image at D21. (E) Represents weanling offspring hepatic mitochondrial complex-V relative protein abundance and Western blot image at D21. All data were analysed using a 2 × 2 factorial design with diet*sex*interaction include as factors (general analysis of variance) using IBM SPSS statistics 25. Data presented as group mean ± SEM. * denotes significance of p < 0.05.
Figure 4(A–D) Adult offspring control males (n = 6); fructose males (n = 6); control females (n = 5) and fructose females (n = 6). (A) Represents adult offspring hepatic mitochondrial complex-I relative protein abundance and Western blot image at 4 M. (B) Represents adult offspring hepatic mitochondrial complex-II relative protein abundance and Western blot image at 4 M. (C) Represents adult offspring hepatic mitochondrial complex-III relative protein abundance and Western blot image at 4 M. (D) Represents adult offspring hepatic mitochondrial complex-IV relative protein abundance and Western blot image at 4 M. (E) Represents adult offspring hepatic mitochondrial ATP synthase relative protein abundance and Western blot image at 4 M. All data were analysed using a 2 × 2 factorial design with diet*sex*interaction include as factors (general analysis of variance) using IBM SPSS statistics 25. Data presented as group mean ± SEM. * denotes significance of p < 0.05.
Figure 5(A–C) Weanling offspring hepatic proteins. Weanling offspring control males (n = 6); fructose males (n = 6); control females (n = 6) and fructose females (n = 6). (A) Represents weanling offspring hepatic VDAC1 relative protein abundance and Western blot image at D21. (B) Represents weanling offspring hepatic SREBP-1c relative protein abundance and Western blot image at D21. (C) Represents weanling offspring hepatic FAS relative protein abundance and Western blot image at D21. All data were analysed using a 2 × 2 factorial design with diet*sex*interaction include as factors (general analysis of variance) using IBM SPSS statistics 25. Data presented as group mean ± SEM. * denotes significance of p < 0.05.
Figure 6(A–C) Adult offspring hepatic proteins. Adult offspring control males (n = 6); fructose males (n = 6); control females (n = 6) and fructose females (n = 6). (A) Represents adult offspring hepatic VDAC1 relative protein abundance and Western blot image at 4 M. (B) Represents adult offspring hepatic SREBP-1c relative protein abundance and Western blot image at 4 M. (C) Represents adult offspring hepatic FAS relative protein abundance and Western blot image at 4 M. All data were analysed using a 2 × 2 factorial design with diet*sex*interaction include as factors (general analysis of variance) using IBM SPSS statistics 25. Data presented as group mean ± SEM. * denotes significance of p < 0.05.