| Literature DB >> 36128535 |
Caibi Zhou1,2, Liuhong Hu1,2, Ren Mu1, Xin Mei1, Xingli Wu1, Chuanming Wang3, Xiaolu Zhou1,2.
Abstract
This work aims to study the effect of compound green tea (CGT) on liver lipid metabolism in mice based on metabolomics of liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), and preliminarily identify potential biomarkers and pathways of action by using a metabonomic network database to explore the lipid-lowering effect of CGT. In this study, forty mice were randomly divided into four groups: compound tea treatment group (DH), high-fat model control group (NK), normal control group (CK) and positive drug group (YK). After a month of different interventions, the mice were weighed and the blood lipid indexes were detected. In addition, differential liver metabolites were monitored by using LC-MS. The results showed that CGT and positive drug treatment were able to decrease body weight, liver coefficient, TC, TG and LDL levels of obese mice, while increasing HDL levels. Among the 110 compounds obtained, 54 metabolites were significantly altered in the four comparisons. More importantly, 15 remarkably downregulated metabolites involved in Lysopc 16:1, Lysopc 18:1, and Lysopc 18:2 were found in the DH group when the mice were treated with CGT; meanwhile, the positive drug Xuezhikang was able to significantly downregulate 14 compounds, including (±)18-HEPE, and 6 keto-PGF1α, compared with the NK group. Besides, KEGG enrichment analysis also revealed the important metabolic pathways, such as linoleic acid metabolism, Biosynthesis of unsaturated fatty acids, and α-linolenic acid metabolism, were related to fatty acid metabolism. These results suggested that CGT could regulate the lipid metabolism in the liver of hyperlipidemia mice, and may regulate 54 potential biomarkers in mice through a related metabolic pathway to make them return to a normal state and improve the disorder of lipid metabolism. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36128535 PMCID: PMC9412714 DOI: 10.1039/d2ra02831j
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Fig. 1Types and relative contents of main chemical compositions in tea extract.
The individual catechins for LC-MS/MS analysis
| Catechins | Standard sample | Tea sample | mg ml−1 | Percent (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RT | Area | RT | Area | |||
| GC | 4.728 | 8042.9 | 2.923 | 254.5 | 0.03 | 0.17% |
| EGC | 7.001 | 4156.9 | 4.307 | 245.5 | 0.06 | 0.31% |
| C | 8.839 | 1058.5 | 5.913 | 996.0 | 0.06 | 0.32% |
| EC | 12.653 | 38 353.5 | 9.449 | 2373.8 | 0.06 | 0.33% |
| EGCG | 12.985 | 45 294.0 | 10.567 | 18 209.4 | 0.40 | 2.12% |
| GCG | 15.035 | 29 088.8 | 12.066 | 1869.6 | 0.06 | 0.34% |
| ECG | 22.540 | 68 293.6 | 16.338 | 4139.1 | 0.06 | 0.32% |
| CG | 23.814 | 14 202.9 | 17.906 | 709.3 | 0.05 | 0.26% |
Effect of compound tea on body weight and blood lipid index of micea
| Treatment | Initial body wt (g) | Final body wt (g) | TC/mmol L−1 | TG/mmol L−1 | LDL/mmol L−1 | HDL/mmol L−1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 27.23 ± 1.29a | 43.75 ± 1.03bc | 2.81 ± 0.16c | 0.64 ± 0.02b | 0.55 ± 0.02b | 1.05 ± 0.07a |
| NK | 28.01 ± 1.06a | 52.09 ± 1.56a | 3.69 ± 0.12a | 0.73 ± 0.09a | 0.69 ± 0.05a | 0.78 ± 0.03b |
| YK | 27.71 ± 1.93a | 45.46 ± 1.28b | 2.97 ± 0.19bc | 0.56 ± 0.05bc | 0.53 ± 0.06b | 1.03 ± 0.04a |
| DH | 27.08 ± 0.65a | 44.52 ± 1.16bc | 3.22 ± 0.06b | 0.47 ± 0.07c | 0.56 ± 0.03b | 1.04 ± 0.06a |
Values in capital letters are expressed as mean ± SD of 10 mice in each group, the values in lower case in the same column at p < 0.05. CK, normal control group; NK, high-fat model control group; YK, positive drug group; DH, compound tea treatment group.
The significantly differential metabolites in all pairwise comparisonsa
| Metabolites | CK | NK | NK | CK | CK | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VIP | log2 FC | VIP | log2 FC | VIP | log2 FC | VIP | log2 FC | VIP | log2 FC | |
| Lysopg 18:1 | 1.95 | 1.34 ↑ | ||||||||
| Lysope 18:1 | 1.90 | 1.29 ↑ | ||||||||
| Lysopa 18:0 | 1.29 | 1.79 ↑ | 1.37 | 1.34 ↑ | ||||||
| Lysops 22:5 | 1.04 | −1.02 ↓ | 1.58 | 2.03 ↑ | ||||||
| Lysope 14:0 | 1.05 | −1.26 ↓ | ||||||||
| Lysopc 16:1 | 1.75 | −1.09 ↓ | 1.56 | −1.39 ↓ | ||||||
| Lysopc 18:1 | 1.69 | −1.17 ↓ | ||||||||
| Lysopc 18:2 | 1.74 | −1.02 ↓ | ||||||||
| Lysopc 20:2 | 1.58 | −1.00 ↓ | 1.44 | 1.14 ↑ | ||||||
| Lysopc 14:0 | 1.52 | −1.10 ↓ | ||||||||
| Lysopc 15:0 | 1.63 | −1.22 ↓ | ||||||||
| LysoPE (16:1(9 | 1.17 | −1.23 ↓ | ||||||||
| (±)17-HETE [(±)17-hydroxy-5 | 1.77 | −8.23 ↓ | 1.40 | 8.61 ↑ | 1.59 | −8.23 ↓ | ||||
| 13-HOTrE [13 | 1.33 | −4.89 ↓ | 1.30 | −6.38 ↓ | 1.60 | −5.31 ↓ | ||||
|
| 1.70 | 1.20 ↑ | 1.27 | 1.14 ↑ | ||||||
| 9-HOTrE [9 | 1.64 | −1.41 ↓ | 1.68 | −1.34 ↓ | ||||||
| Tetradecanedioic acid | 1.07 | −1.30 ↓ | 1.64 | −1.96 ↓ | ||||||
| PE (18:1(9 | 1.90 | 1.37 ↑ | 1.40 | 1.41 ↑ | ||||||
| (±)5-HEPE [(±)-5-hydroxy-6 | 2.15 | −1.69 ↓ | ||||||||
| (±)7-HDHA [(±)7-hydroxy-4 | 1.26 | −1.14 ↓ | 1.10 | −1.10 ↓ | ||||||
| 13-oxo-ODE [13-oxo-9 | 1.07 | −1.17 ↓ | 1.44 | −1.43 ↓ | ||||||
| Stearidonic acid | 1.19 | −1.56 ↓ | 2.17 | 1.71 ↑ | 1.64 | −2.04 ↓ | ||||
|
| 1.07 | −1.05 ↓ | 2.12 | 1.63 ↑ | 1.59 | −1.26 ↓ | ||||
| (±)12-HEPE [(±)-12-hydroxy-5 | 1.17 | −2.28 ↓ | 1.28 | −5.55 ↓ | 1.24 | −4.98 ↓ | ||||
| (±)12-HETE [(±)12-hydroxy-5 | 1.33 | −2.12 ↓ | 1.74 | −2.31 ↓ | 1.32 | −6.64 ↓ | 1.44 | −6.83 ↓ | ||
| (±)15-HEPE [(±)-15-hydroxy-5 | 1.31 | −7.09 ↓ | 1.36 | −7.09 ↓ | 1.72 | −12.40 ↓ | 1.63 | −12.40 ↓ | ||
| (±)17-HDHA [(±)17-hydroxy-4 | 1.93 | −7.99 ↓ | 2.36 | −7.99 ↓ | 1.39 | −12.24 ↓ | 1.48 | −12.24 ↓ | ||
| 12,13-EpOME [(±)12(13)-epoxy-9 | 1.08 | −1.48 ↓ | ||||||||
| 14( | 1.15 | −1.93 ↓ | 1.19 | −2.04 ↓ | 1.31 | −6.71 ↓ | 1.38 | −6.82 ↓ | ||
| (±)18-HEPE [(±)-18-hydroxy-5 | 1.28 | −7.45 ↓ | 1.39 | −12.01 ↓ | 1.48 | −12.01 ↓ | ||||
| (±)18-HETE [(±)18-hydroxy-5 | 1.36 | −1.65 ↓ | 1.43 | −2.56 ↓ | ||||||
| (±)9-HETE [(±)-9-hydroxy-5 | 1.28 | −6.09 ↓ | 1.38 | −11.66 ↓ | 1.48 | −11.66 ↓ | ||||
| 11(S)-HETE [11 | 1.55 | −1.71 ↓ | 1.27 | −1.94 ↓ | ||||||
| 11,12-EET [(±)11,(12)-epoxy-5 | 1.51 | −1.71 ↓ | 1.23 | −1.92 ↓ | ||||||
| 14,15-EET [(±)14(15)-epoxy-5 | 1.46 | −1.63 ↓ | ||||||||
| Cuminaldehyde | 1.14 | −1.34 ↓ | 1.39 | −1.71 ↓ | ||||||
| 2-Methylbutyroylcarnitine | 1.23 | −2.08 ↓ | 1.02 | −2.15 ↓ | ||||||
| 6 keto-PGF1α [6-oxo-9α,11α,15 | 1.08 | −1.54 ↓ | 1.19 | −2.03 ↓ | 1.09 | −3.87 ↓ | ||||
| PGF1α | 1.39 | 1.52 ↑ | ||||||||
| PGF2α | 1.10 | −2.11 ↓ | ||||||||
| PGD2 | 1.17 | −3.20 ↓ | ||||||||
| TXB2 | 1.28 | −2.58 ↓ | ||||||||
| Punicic acid | 1.05 | −2.22 ↓ | 1.40 | −2.42 ↓ | 1.38 | −2.61 ↓ | ||||
| 12-Hete | 1.16 | −2.86 ↓ | 1.33 | −3.09 ↓ | ||||||
| γ-Linolenic acid (C18:3N6) | 1.02 | −1.05 ↓ | ||||||||
| Palmitoleic acid (C16:1) | 1.04 | −1.10 ↓ | ||||||||
| EPA [5 | 1.00 | −1.31 ↓ | ||||||||
| 8,15-Dihete | 1.09 | −1.08 ↓ | ||||||||
| 3-Methylglutaric acid | 1.06 | −1.34 ↓ | 1.38 | −1.38 ↓ | ||||||
|
| 1.01 | −1.04 ↓ | ||||||||
| 2,2-Dimethyl succinic acid | 1.07 | −1.33 ↓ | 1.29 | −1.31 ↓ | ||||||
| 9-oxo-ODE [9-oxo-10 | 1.36 | −1.25 ↓ | ||||||||
The statistically selected metabolites with significant differences are shown in the annotations in the KEGG database. “↑” and “↓” indicate that metabolites are up-regulated and down-regulated, respectively.
Fig. 2Differential metabolite KEGG classification diagram and enrichment analysis diagram. (A) CK vs. NK, (B) NK vs. DH, (C) NK vs. YK. The abscissa represents the rich factor corresponding to each pathway, and the ordinate is the pathway name. The color of the point is p-value, and the redder color means the more significant the enrichment. The size of the dots represents the number of differential metabolites enriched.
Fig. 3Lipid metabolism in liver of high fat mice treated with CGT. Red characters represent an increase in content, and green characters represent a decrease in content.