| Literature DB >> 35324763 |
Narimane Djekkoun1,2, Flore Depeint3, Marion Guibourdenche1, Hiba El Khayat El Sabbouri1, Aurélie Corona1, Larbi Rhazi3, Jerome Gay-Queheillard1, Leila Rouabah2, Farida Hamdad4, Véronique Bach1, Moncef Benkhalifa1,4, Hafida Khorsi-Cauet1.
Abstract
An increasing burden of evidence is pointing toward pesticides as risk factors for chronic disorders such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, leading to metabolic syndrome. Our objective was to assess the impact of chlorpyrifos (CPF) on metabolic and bacteriologic markers. Female rats were exposed before and during gestation and during lactation to CPF (1 mg/kg/day). Outcomes such as weight, glucose and lipid profiles, as well as disturbances in selected gut bacterial levels, were measured in both the dams (at the end of the lactation period) and in their female offspring at early adulthood (60 days of age). The results show that the weight of CPF dams were lower compared to the other groups, accompanied by an imbalance in blood glucose and lipid markers, and selected gut bacteria. Intra-uterine growth retardation, as well as metabolic disturbances and perturbation of selected gut bacteria, were also observed in their offspring, indicating both a direct effect on the dams and an indirect effect of CPF on the female offspring. Co-treatment with inulin (a prebiotic) prevented some of the outcomes of the pesticide. Further investigations could help better understand if those perturbations mimic or potentiate nutritional risk factors for metabolic syndrome through high fat diet.Entities:
Keywords: dysmetabolism; intestinal dysbiosis; perigestational; pesticides; prebiotic; risk factor
Year: 2022 PMID: 35324763 PMCID: PMC8949051 DOI: 10.3390/toxics10030138
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxics ISSN: 2305-6304
Figure 1Treatment groups. Dams were fed standard diet and various treatments per os before gestation until weaning at which time they were sacrificed. Their female offspring were fed a standard diet only until 60 days of age at which time they were sacrificed. CPF: Chlorpyrifos; b.w.: body weight.
Body weight (g) before gestation (1st month and 4th month), during gestation (21st day of gestation) and during lactation (21st day of lactation) of dams exposed to CPF and inulin. The values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 4). Significantly different (p < 0.05) using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test. C: Control; CPF: Chlorpyrifos; CI: Control inulin; CPFI: Chlorpyrifos + inulin.
| Before Gestation (g) | Gestation (g) | Lactation(g) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Month | 4th Month | 21st Day of Pregnancy | 21st Day of Lactation | |||||
| Control | 268.7 ± 28.28 | F value = 0.980 | 308.7 ± 31.75 | F value = 1.289 | 396.6 ± 88.79 | F value = 0.347 | 334.6 ± 17.47 | F value = 3.140 |
| CPF | 253.5 ± 23.86 | 286.7 ± 30.20 | 413.5 ± 105.35 | 311.0 ± 19.89 | ||||
| Control + Inulin | 260.7 ± 33.62 | 297.2 ± 35.77 | 443.0 ± 68.06 | 392.0 ± 56.56 | ||||
| CPFI | 283.0 ± 10.42 | 325.0 ± 11.63 | 447.0 ± 46.61 | 390.7 ± 42.46 | ||||
Figure 2Effects of perigestational exposure to CPF and inulin on the body weight of the offspring of female rats 3 days after birth (PND3, (A)), as juveniles (PND21, (B)) and young adults (PND60, (C)). Values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 7–10) using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test. Significance * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; C: Control; CPF: Chlorpyrifos; CI: Control inulin; CPFI: Chlorpyrifos + inulin; PND: post-natal day.
Effects of exposure to CPF and inulin on blood sugar (A) and lipid (B) levels in dams. Blood glucose, total cholesterol (TC), plasma triglycerides (TG), high density lipoproteins (HDL) or low density lipoproteins (LDL) were measured in plasma. The values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 4). Significantly different (p < 0.05) using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test. C: Control; CPF: Chlorpyrifos; CI: Control inulin; CPFI: Chlorpyrifos + inulin.
| Glucose (g/L) | Cholesterol (g/L) | Triglycerides (g/L) | HDL (g/L) | LDL (g/L) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 7.8 ± 0.83 | F value = 40.018 | 1.7 ± 0.25 | F value = 6.480 | 1.4 ± 0.02 | F value = 8.573 | 0.6 ± 0.02 | F value = 3.817 | 0.8 ± 0.27 | F value = 5.549 |
| CPF | 11.6 ± 0.08 | 2.4 ± 0.24 | 1.8 ± 0.15 | 0.4 ± 0.08 | 1.6 ± 0.32 | |||||
| Control + inulin | 7.4 ± 0.15 | 1.4 ± 0.17 | 1.3 ± 0.12 | 0.5 ± 0.10 | 0.5 ± 0.25 | |||||
| CPFI | 9.4 ± 0.40 | 2.0 ± 0.39 | 1.6 ± 0.12 | 0.6 ± 0.04 | 1.0 ± 0.36 | |||||
Figure 3Effects of perigestational exposure to CPF and inulin on blood glucose (A) and lipid levels (B) in female offspring. Blood glucose, Total cholesterol (TC), plasma triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoproteins (HDL) or low-density lipoproteins (LDL) were measured in plasma. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 7–10) using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test. Significance * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. C: Control; CPF: Chlorpyrifos; CI: Control inulin; CPFI: Chlorpyrifos + inulin.
Effects of exposure to CPF and inulin on beneficial flora in dams. The values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 4). Significantly different (p < 0.05) using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test. C: Control; CPF: Chlorpyrifos; CI: Control inulin; CPFI: Chlorpyrifos + inulin.
| Beneficial Flora (CFU/g) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| Control | 8.2 ± 0.09 | F value = 4.672 | 7.2 ± 0.61 | F value = 2.192 |
| CPF | 7.2 ± 0.22 | 6.5 ± 0.32 | ||
| Control + inulin | 8.3 ± 0.66 | 7.6 ± 0.53 | ||
| CPFI | 7.9 ± 0.48 | 7.0 ± 0.60 | ||
Effects of exposure to CPF and inulin on potentially pathogenic flora in dams. The values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 4). Significantly different (p < 0.05) using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test. C: Control; CPF: Chlorpyrifos; CI: Control inulin; CPFI: Chlorpyrifos + inulin.
| Potentially Pathogenic Flora (CFU/g) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Control | 7.9 ± 0.26 | F value = 7.662 | 7.6 ± 0.10 | F value = 13.012 | 7.3 ± 0.28 | F value = 3.293 | 6.7 ± 0.35 | F value = 0.935 |
| CPF | 8.3 ± 0.04 | 8.3 ± 0.14 | 8.2 ± 0.10 | 7.1 ± 0.20 | ||||
| Control + inulin | 7.4 ± 0.31 | 7.4 ± 0.03 | 7.2 ± 0.28 | 7.0 ± 0.17 | ||||
| CPFI | 7.9 ± 0.19 | 7.3 ± 0.33 | 7.5 ± 0.70 | 7.0 ± 0.36 | ||||
Figure 4Effects of perigestational exposure to CPF and inulin on beneficial flora (A) and on potentially pathogenic flora (B) of female offspring. Values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 7–10) using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s test. Significance * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. C: Control; CPF: Chlorpyrifos; CI: Control inulin; CPFI: Chlorpyrifos + inulin.
Summary of direct and indirect impact of CPF and protective impact of inulin co-exposure.
| Direct Effect (Dams) | Indirect Effect (Offspring) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPF | Inulin on CPF | CPF | Inulin on CPF | ||
| Metabolic | Weight | - | - | Loss (at PND21 only) | Recovery |
| Glucose | Increased | Recovery | Increased | - | |
| Cholesterol | Increased (total) | Recovery (total) | Increased (total) | - (total) | |
| Triglycerides | Increased | - | Increased | Recovery | |
| Bacterial | Selected bacteria (+) | Decreased | - | Decreased | Recovery |
| Selected bacteria (−) | Increased | - | Increased | Recovery | |
| Metabolic ratio | - | - | Increased Acetate | Recovery | |
| Translocation | - | - | Increased | - | |