| Literature DB >> 36238310 |
Rim Ben Necib1,2,3,4, Claudia Manca1,2,3,4, Sébastien Lacroix3,4, Cyril Martin1,4, Nicolas Flamand1,2,4, Vincenzo Di Marzo1,2,3,4,5,6, Cristoforo Silvestri1,2,4,6.
Abstract
Omega-3 fatty acids support cardiometabolic health and reduce chronic low-grade inflammation. These fatty acids may impart their health benefits partly by modulating the endocannabinoidome and the gut microbiome, both of which are key regulators of metabolism and the inflammatory response. Whole hemp seeds (Cannabis sativa) are of exceptional nutritional value, being rich in omega-3 fatty acids. We assessed the effects of dietary substitution (equivalent to about 2 tablespoons of seeds a day for humans) of whole hemp seeds in comparison with whole linseeds in a diet-induced obesity mouse model and determined their effects on obesity and the gut microbiome-endocannabinoidome axis. We show that whole hemp seed substitution did not affect weigh gain, adiposity, or food intake, whereas linseed substitution did, in association with higher fasting glucose levels, greater insulin release during an oral glucose tolerance test, and higher levels of liver triglycerides than controls. Furthermore, hemp seed substitution mitigated diet-induced obesity-associated increases in intestinal permeability and circulating PAI-1 levels, while having no effects on markers of inflammation in epididymal adipose tissue, which were, however, increased in mice fed linseeds. Both hemp seeds and linseeds were able to modify the expression of several endocannabinoidome genes and markedly increased the levels of several omega-3 fatty acid-derived endocannabinoidome bioactive lipids with previously suggested anti-inflammatory actions in a tissue specific manner, despite the relatively low level of seed substitution. While neither diet markedly modified the gut microbiome, mice on the hemp seed diet had higher abundance of Clostridiaceae 1 and Rikenellaceae than mice fed linseed or control diet, respectively. Thus, hemp seed-containing foods might represent a source of healthy fats that are not likely to exacerbate the metabolic consequences of obesogenic diets while producing intestinal permeability protective effects and some anti-inflammatory actions.Entities:
Keywords: endocannabinoidome; gut microbiome; hemp seeds; linseeds; nutrition; obesity; omega-3
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36238310 PMCID: PMC9552265 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.882455
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Figure 1Diet-induced changes in weight gain and body composition. (A) Weight gain in g: #significant difference between LFLS versus all the groups fed with HFHS diet (p < 0.05); *significant difference between Lin group versus Hemp and HFHS groups (p < 0.05). (B) Daily food consumption in Kcal: #significant difference between LFLS versus all the groups fed with HFHS diet (p < 0.05). *significant difference between Lin group versus Hemp group (p < 0.05). (C) Body composition changes (difference between week 0 and week 8 in g). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ****p < 0.00001.
Figure 2Glucose and insulin homeostasis after 8 weeks of HFHS diets. (A) Glycemic excursion curves during OGTT (left, significant difference between LFLS vs. all the groups fed with HFHS diets) with the corresponding area under the curve analysis of glucose (right); (B) Insulinemic excursion curves during OGTT (left, significant difference between LFLS vs. all the groups fed with HFHS diets) and the corresponding area under the curve analysis; (C) HOMA-IR calculated using glucose and insulin AUCs (area under the curve) from OGTTs. *p < 0.05); **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001); ****p < 0.00001). (D) Intestinal permeability as measure by sulfonic acid levels in blood after administration with the OGTT: #significant difference between LFLS versus HFHS group (p < 0.05). *significant difference between Hemp versus HFHS group (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Assessment of metabolic parameters, cytokines, and adipokines after 8 weeks of HFHS diets. (A) Fasting glucose levels; (B) liver triglyceride content and weight; (C) total cholesterol and HDL levels; (D) circulating levels of adipokines; (E) circulating levels of PAI-1; (F) epididymal (EPAT) and sub-cutaneous (SCAT) levels of TNF-α and IL-10. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; ****p < 0.00001.
Figure 4eCBome receptor and enzyme expression measured by qPCR array in brown adipose tissue (BAT), epididymal adipose tissue (EPAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SCAT), hypothalamus (HYPO), liver, and muscle. Statistically significant differences between the high-fat high sucrose groups (HFHS, Hemp, or Lin) versus the LFLS group are indicated with a “+” (increase in expression) or “−” (decrease in expression); p < 0.05. Yellow boxes indicate significant difference between Hemp and Lin; green boxes indicate significant differences between Hemp or Lin and HFHS; p < 0.05.
Figure 5eCBome bioactive lipid mediator levels in plasma, brown adipose tissue (BAT), epididymal adipose tissue (EPAT), subcutaneous adipose tissue (SCAT), hypothalamus (HYPO), liver, and muscle. Statistically significant differences between the high-fat high sucrose groups (HFHS, Hemp, or Lin) versus the LFLS group are indicated with a “+” (increase in expression) or “−” (decrease in expression); p < 0.05. Green boxes indicate significant differences between Hemp or Lin and HFHS; p < 0.05.