| Literature DB >> 35071508 |
Unal Atas1, Nuray Erin2, Gokhan Tazegul1, Gulsum Ozlem Elpek3, Bülent Yıldırım4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 (TRPV1), a nonselective cation channel, is activated by capsaicin, a pungent ingredient of hot pepper. Previous studies have suggested a link between obesity and capsaicin-associated pathways, and activation of TRPV1 may provide an alternative approach for obesity treatment. However, data on the TRPV1 distribution in human gastric mucosa are limited, and the degree of TRPV1 distribution in the gastric and duodenal mucosal cells of obese people in comparison with normal-weight individuals is unknown. AIM: To clarify gastric and duodenal mucosal expression of TRPV1 in humans and compare TRPV1 expression in obese and healthy individuals.Entities:
Keywords: Capsaicin; Immunohistochemistry; Morbid obesity; Obesity; Transient receptor potential channels; Transient receptor potential vanilloid 1; Transient receptor potential vanilloid cation channels
Year: 2022 PMID: 35071508 PMCID: PMC8727248 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i1.79
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Clin Cases ISSN: 2307-8960 Impact factor: 1.337
Distribution and comparison of transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 in fundus cells in the morbidly obese and control groups, n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Parietal | No staining | 6 (13.0) | 7 (35) | 13 (19.6) | ||
| Distribution | Limited | 8 (17.3) | 3 (15) | 11 (16.6) | ||
| Widespread | 32 (69.5) | 10 (50) | 42 (63.6) | |||
| Intensity | Poor | 33 (71.7) | 11 (55) | 44 (66.6) | ||
| Strong | 7 (15.2) | 2 (10) | 9 (13.6) | |||
| IRS ± SE | 5.42 ± 0.49 | 4.84 ± 0.93 | 5.25 ± 0.44 | 0.60 | ||
| Chief | No staining | 15 (32.6) | 11 (55) | 26 (39.3) | ||
| Distribution | Limited | 9 (19.5) | 6 (30) | 15 (22.7) | ||
| Widespread | 22 (47.8) | 5 (25) | 27 (40.9) | |||
| Intensity | Poor | 30 (65.2) | 11 (55) | 41 (62.1) | ||
| Strong | 1 (2.1) | 0 (0) | 1 (1.5) | |||
| IRS ± SE | 2.78 ± 0.40 | 1.74 ± 0.50 | 2.47 ± 0.32 | 0.13 | ||
| Foveolar | No staining | 42 (91.3) | 16 (80) | 58 (87.8) | ||
| Distribution | Limited | 1 (2.1) | 0 (0) | 1 (1.5) | ||
| Widespread | 3 (6.5) | 4 (20) | 7 (10.6) | |||
| Intensity | Poor | 4 (8.6) | 4 (20) | 8 (12.1) | ||
| Strong | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |||
| IRS ± SEM | 0.33 ± 0.16 | 0.84 ± 0.38 | 0.48 ± 0.16 | 0.16 | ||
P < 0.01 vs Parietal-Chief cell.
P < 0.01 vs Parietal-Foveolar cell.
P < 0.01 vs Chief-Foveolar cell.
IRS: Immunoreactivity score.
Distribution and comparison of transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 in duodenal cells in the morbidly obese and control groups, n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Goblet | No staining | 30 (65.2) | 15 (75) | 45 (68.1) | ||
| Distribution | Limited | 12 (26.0) | 2 (10) | 14 (21.2) | ||
| Widespread | 4 (8.6) | 3 (15) | 7 (10.6) | |||
| Intensity | Poor | 16 (3.7) | 5 (25) | 21 (31.8) | ||
| Strong | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0%) | |||
| IRS (± SEM) | 1.14 ± 0.25 | 0.8 ± 0.34 | 1.03 ± 0.2 | 0.40 | ||
| Absorptive | No staining | 24 (52.1) | 9 (45) | 33 (50) | ||
| Distribution | Limited | 11 (23.9) | 8 (40) | 19 (28.7) | ||
| Widespread | 11 (23.9) | 3 (15) | 24 (36.3) | |||
| Intensity | Poor | 19 (41.3) | 6 (30) | 25 (37.8) | ||
| Strong | 3 (6.5) | 5 (25) | 8 (12.1) | |||
| IRS (± SEM) | 2.14 ± 0.41 | 2.25 ± 0.56 | 2.17 ± 0.33 | 0.90 | ||
| Mucous | No staining | 31 (67.3) | 15 (75) | 46 (69.6) | ||
| Distribution | Limited | 12 (26.0) | 3 (15) | 15 (22.7) | ||
| Widespread | 3 (6.5) | 2 (10) | 5 (7.5) | |||
| Intensity | Poor | 9 (19.5) | 5 (25) | 14 (21.2) | ||
| Strong | 6 (13.0) | 0 (0) | 6 (9.0) | |||
| IRS (± SEM) | 1.55 ± 0.41 | 0.85 ± 0.39 | 1.33 ± 0.31 | 0.41 | ||
P < 0.05 vs Goblet-Absorptive cell.
P < 0.01 vs Goblet-Absorptive cell.
P < 0.05 vs Mucous-Absorptive cell.
P < 0.01 vs Mucous-Absorptive cell.
IRS: Immunoreactivity score.
Figure 1Distribution of transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 channels in the gastroduodenal mucosa were demonstrated by immunohistochemical staining. A: Fundus; B: Antrum; C: Duodenum.
Distribution and comparison of transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 in antrum cells in the morbidly obese and control groups, n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Foveolar | No staining | 14 (30.4) | 7 (35) | 21 (31.8) | ||
| Distribution | Limited | 10 (21.7) | 1 (5) | 11 (16.6) | ||
| Widespread | 22 (47.8) | 12 (60) | 34 (51.5) | |||
| Intensity | Poor | 27 (58.6) | 10 (50) | 37 (56.0) | ||
| Strong | 5 (10.8) | 3 (15) | 8 (12.1%) | |||
| IRS ± SE | 5.18 ± 0.59 | 4.35 ± 0.91 | 4.92 ± 0.49 | 0.44 | ||
| Mucous | No staining | 20 (43.4) | 9 (45) | 29 (43.9) | ||
| Distribution | Limited | 21 (45.6) | 7 (35) | 28 (42.4) | ||
| Widespread | 5 (10.8) | 4 (20) | 9 (13.6) | |||
| Intensity | Poor | 19 (41.3) | 8 (40) | 27 (40.9) | ||
| Strong | 7 (15.2) | 3 (15) | 10 (15.1) | |||
| IRS ± SE | 3.24 ± 0.60 | 2.30 ± 0.70 | 2.95 ± 0.46 | 0.56 | ||
P < 0.01 vs Mucous-Foveolar cell.
IRS: Immunoreactivity score.
Figure 2Comparison of immunoreactivity scores of foveolar cells in the fundus and antrum, mucous cells in the duodenum and antrum. A: Foveolar cells in the fundus and antrum; B: Mucous cells in the duodenum and antrum. IRS: Immunoreactivity score.
Figure 3Duodenal mucous cells had higher immunoreactivity scores in patients with hypertension and diabetes. IRS: Immunoreactivity score; HT (+): Hypertensive; HT (-): Normotensive; DM (+): Diabetic; DM (-): Non-diabetic.