4.6 Article

Feeding Angptl4-/- mice trans fat promotes foam cell formation in mesenteric lymph nodes without leading to ascites

期刊

JOURNAL OF LIPID RESEARCH
卷 58, 期 6, 页码 1100-1113

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1194/jlr.M074278

关键词

atherosclerosis; angiopoietin-like 4; macrophage foam cells; inflammation; unfolded protein response; lipotoxicity

资金

  1. Nanyang Technological University iFood Research Grant [WBS M4081459.080]
  2. Fondation Leducq [12CVD04]
  3. Graduate School Voeding, Levensmiddelentechnologie, Agro-Biotechnologie en Gezondheid (VLAG) (Wageningen University)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Angiopoietin-like 4 (ANGPTL4) regulates plasma triglyceride levels by inhibiting LPL. Inactivation of ANG-PTL4 decreases plasma triglycerides and reduces the risk of coronary artery disease. Unfortunately, targeting ANGPTL4 for the therapeutic management of dyslipidemia and atherosclerosis is hampered by the observation that mice and monkeys in which ANGPTL4 is inactivated exhibit lipid accumulation in the mesenteric lymph nodes (MLNs). In mice these pathological events exclusively unfold upon feeding a high saturated FA diet and are followed by an ultimately lethal pro-inflammatory response and chylous ascites. Here, we show that Angptl4(-/-) mice fed a diet rich in trans FAs develop numerous lipid-filled giant cells in their MLNs, yet do not have elevated serum amyloid and haptoglobin, do not exhibit ascites, and survive, unlike Angptl4(-/-) mice fed a saturated FA-rich diet. In RAW264.7 macrophages, the saturated FA, palmitate, markedly increased markers of inflammation and the unfolded protein response, whereas the trans-unsaturated elaidate and the cis-unsaturated oleate had the opposite effect. In conclusion, trans and saturated FAs have very distinct biological effects in macrophages. Furthermore, lipid accumulation in MLNs is uncoupled from activation of an acute-phase response and chylous ascites, suggesting that ANGPTL4 should not be fully dismissed as target for dyslipidemia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据