| Literature DB >> 36134391 |
Prateek Sharma1, Jayachandran Nair1, Anurag Sinh1, Thirumurthy Velpandian2, Ruchi Tripathi1, Rajani Mathur1.
Abstract
Purpose: Fructose is highly lipogenic, and its unhindered ingestion by children and adolescents is understood to induce hypertriglyceridemia and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (ped-NAFLD) that is till date managed symptomatically or surgically. The aim of the present study was to investigate the potential of hydroethanolic extract of leaves of Guava (PG-HM) to suppress the alterations in the hepatic molecular signals due to unrestricted fructose (15%) drinking by growing rats.Entities:
Keywords: Psidium guajava; insulin sensitizer; mitochondrial function; pediatric NAFLD
Year: 2022 PMID: 36134391 PMCID: PMC9484835 DOI: 10.2147/DMSO.S381102
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes ISSN: 1178-7007 Impact factor: 3.249
Figure 1Standardization of PG-HM using LC-MS/MS (A) ESI-MRM chromatogram of Qu, its quantification in hydroethanolic extract of leaves of Psidium guajava (PG-HM). (B) Proposed fragmentation pattern for Qu using (-ve) ESI- MS2 product ion mode.
Effect of PG-HM on Body Weight, Fructose/Water Intake, Food Intake, Fasting Blood Glucose and OGTT-AUC of Fructose Drinking Rats
| Week 0 | Week 4 | Week 0 | Week 8 | ||
| 40.066 ± 1.53 | 124.33 ± 15.87 | 62.2±18.75 | 211.7±15.07 | ||
| 58.566 ± 3.50* | 172.16 ± 18.34* | 83.0±12.38* | 250.4±30.13* | ||
| 41.66 ± 2.38# | 112.0 ± 11.83# | 83.16±9.66# | 221.33±20.81# | ||
| Week 1 | Week 4 | Week 1 | Week 8 | ||
| 52.33 ± 14.03 | 132 ± 32.48 | 83.14±3.43 | 132.0±12.70 | ||
| 94 ± 22.93* | 185.33 ± 62.43* | 63.5±31.74* | 252.5±29.62* | ||
| 60.94 ± 18.23# | 84.66 ± 28.98# | 41.66±20.82# | 240.0±34.49# | ||
| Week 1 | Week 4 | Week 1 | Week 8 | ||
| 34.0 ± 9.36 | 91.57 ± 8.14 | 54.85±8.87 | 82.45±34.48 | ||
| 53.28 ± 18.08* | 78.57 ± 23.45* | 40.42±35.29* | 65.57±11.57* | ||
| 30.66 ± 10.39# | 61.14± 10.86# | 39.52±24.61# | 81.0±13.08# | ||
| Week 1 | Week 4 | Week 1 | Week 8 | ||
| 81.83 ± 2.4 | 76.16 ± 4.53 | 84.4±3.57 | 94.2 ± 7.5 | ||
| 72.83 ± 6.55 | 85.66 ± 5.95 | 72.5±6.09 | 86.2 ± 2.58 | ||
| 68.167 ± 8.5 | 96.33 ± 16.74 | 79.33±8.5 | 79.33 ± 8.6 | ||
| Week 1 | Week 4 | Week 1 | Week 8 | ||
| - | 7252.5 ± 98.81 | - | 7286.25 ± 139.53 | ||
| - | 7952.5 ± 277.74 | - | 7855 ± 59.0 | ||
| - | 7497.5 ± 300.92 | - | 7330 ± 87.90 | ||
Notes: All values are mean ± SD; (n=6); *p < 0.05 vs NDR; #p < 0.001 vs FDR.
Effect of PG-HM on Visceral Weight, Lipid Profile, Liver Function Test, Activities of Pro-Inflammatory Markers and Enzymes of Glycolysis and Gluconeogenesis After 4 Weeks (Study I) and 8 Weeks (Study II) of Fructose Ingestion by Developing Rats
| Parameters | 4NDR | 4FDR | 4 PGR | 8NDR | 8FDR | 8PGR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.649±0.032 | 0.752±0.103 | 0.690±0.115 | 0.934±0.133 | 0.998±0.054 | 0.836±0.125# | |
| 0.626±0.098 | 0.759±0.105 | 0.618±0.051 | 0.865±0.060 | 0.888±0.067 | 0.757±0.086# | |
| 4.750±0.543 | 7.367±1.149* | 5.318±0.558# | 6.776±1.191 | 8.162±0.534* | 7.927±0.851 | |
| 22.066± 13.458 | 37.733±1.342* | 20.2±10.797# | 11.733±2.995 | 13.2±11.301 | 9.80±7.318 | |
| 74.666± 3.141 | 69.333±7.174 | 64.333±4.033 | 45±2 | 40.333±3.214* | 38.666±3.214 | |
| 15.933± 3.796 | 18.266±1.613 | 19.8±10.6177 | 7.933±1.942 | 37.6±14.8* | 35.466±6.171 | |
| 112.666±17.351 | 99.666±5.085 | 100±7.155 | 64.666±2.886 | 65±7 | 64.333±4.041 | |
| 79.666±18.980 | 91.333±8.066* | 100.333±54.378 | 39.666±9.712 | 188±74* | 177.333±30.859 | |
| 11.967±3.597 | 13.278±4.448 | 11.393±0.231 | 14.754±7.195 | 102.250±8.995* | 43.360±20.735# | |
| 1346.875±70.374 | 2100±59.844* | 943.75±54.110# | 1162.5±88.388 | 2381.25±35.355* | 987.5±26.516# | |
| 0.334±0.034 | 0.377±0.025 | 0.191±0.031# | 0.254±0.032 | 2.312±1.766* | 0.337±0.071# | |
| 2387±94.280 | 822±10.066* | 323.666±56.568# | 500.333±4.714 | 1068.667±21.213* | 757±37.712# | |
| 14,823±38.890 | 17,570.5±49.497* | 14,475.5±67.175# | 14,700.5±247.487 | 15,658±24.748* | 15,180.5±14.142# | |
| 567.7±282.962 | 606.033±98.398 | 461.033± 250.769 | 1401.367±24.041 | 1226.367±18.384* | 1249.8±29.329# | |
| 23.560±10.368 | 84.261±78.347* | 65.795±38.017 | 57.5±14.840 | 174.488±15.918* | 71.25±21.388# | |
| 0.531±0.180 | 3.406±0.142* | 1.639±0.015# | 1.345±0.159 | 3.401±0.277 | 2.834±2.558 | |
| 47.095±14.113 | 54.324±23.869 | 103.372±68.800 | 153.507±80.693 | 161.947±95.923 | 69.622±20.25 | |
| 29.897±17.189 | 3.061±16.182* | 48.214±18.610# | 42.015±16.006 | 49.808±33.342 | 27.410±12.174 | |
| 13.333±0.648 | 17.729±21.419 | 6.062±2.916 | 20±7.542 | 4.229±1.207 | 104.125±19.091# | |
| 99.516±46.112 | 112.086±104.722* | 12.933±10.687 | 81.636±21.590 | 127.686±57.405 | 83.330±35.888 | |
| 12.761±2.104 | 18.214±3.552* | 14.678±1.616 | 19.357±4.865 | 12.809±0.353* | 13.071±0.151 | |
| 10.566±7.841 | 50.215±4.875* | 40.939±16.288 | 22.387±8.945 | 33.616±11.442 | 20.713±16.422 |
Notes: The rise in weight of liver, insulin concentration, triglyceride level, glycogen content, pro-inflammatory markers after fructose ingestion is phenomenal at childhood-adolescence than at early adulthood. All values are mean±SD; (n=6); *p < 0.05 vs NDR; #p < 0.001 vs FDR.
Abbreviations: LDL, Low Density Lipoprotein; VLDL, Very Low Density Lipoprotein; HDL, High Density Lipoprotein; HIF 1α, VEGF TNFα LDH, Lactate Dehydrogenase; G6Pase, glucose-6-phosphatase; FBPase, Fructose −1,6-bisphosphatase; HK, Hexokinase; ALDH, Aldehyde Dehydrogenase; PFK, Phosphofructokinase; ALK, Alkaline Phosphatase.
Figure 2PG-HM reverted the levels of ghrelin, AKT, STAT, JNK, FOXO 1 and SREBP 1c that were skewed after (A–H) 4 weeks and (I–P) 8 weeks of unlimited fructose (15%) drinking by weaned rats. Data expressed as mean ± SD; (n=6), *p < 0.05 vs NDR, #p < 0.001 vs FDR.
Figure 3The FC3 arm simulates the hyperglycemic and hyperinsulinemic environment for HepG2 cells where PGH-HM and PG-EA reduced levels of (A–D) glycogen, (E–H) hexokinase, (I–L) ALDH (M–P) ketohexokinase and (Q–T) phosphofructokinase. Data expressed as mean ± SD; (n=6), *p < 0.05 vs FC1, FC2, FC3.
Figure 4The FC3 arm simulates the hyperglycemic and hyperinsulinemic environment for HepG2 cells where PGH-HM and PG-EA reduced levels of (A–D) PI3k, (E–H) STAT3, (I–L) mTOR, (M–P) HIF-1ɑ, (Q–T) VEGF, and (U–X) TNF-ɑ. Data expressed as mean ± SD; (n=6), *p < 0.05 vs FC1, FC2, FC3.
Figure 5Comparison of PG-HM (35µg mL−1) against Pioglitazone (15 µM) and Metformin (5 mM) in facilitating the flux of fructose and glucose across murine hepatocytes. As compared to Pioglitazone and Metformin, the PG-HM performed better to lower media concentration of fructose (A-C). Pioglitazone and Metformin, performed better than PG-HM to lower glucose concentration from the media (D). Data expressed as mean ± SD; (n=6), *p < 0.05 vs FC1, FC2, FC3.
Figure 6The effect of PG-HM on the markers of mitochondrial function in murine hepatocytes where FC3 simulates hyperglycemic and hyperinsulinemic environment. The PG-HM raised (A–D) NADHCoQ reductase (E–H), succinate dehydrogenase, (I–L) cytochrome c and (M–P) ATP synthase activities. Data expressed as mean ± SD; (n=6), *p < 0.05 vs Normal.
Figure 7The effect of PG-HM on the markers of oxidative stress in murine hepatocytes where FC3 simulates hyperglycemic and hyperinsulinemic environments. The PG-HM elevated (A–D) SOD, (E–H) GSH, but (I–L) reduced MDA levels. Data expressed as mean ± SD; (n=6), *p < 0.05 vs Normal.