4.6 Article

Role of white adipose lipolysis in the development of NASH induced by methionine- and choline-deficient diet

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbalip.2014.08.015

关键词

Fasting response; Linoleic acid; Lipolysis; Metabolomics; Oleic acid; Choline deficiency

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health [U554 ES16015, 1R01ES022186-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methionine- and choline-deficient diet (MCD) is a model for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in rodents. However, the mechanism of NASH development by dietary methionine/choline deficiency remains undetermined. To elucidate the early metabolic changes associated with MCD-NASH, serum metabolomic analysis was performed using mice treated with MCD and control diet for 3 days and 1 week, revealing significant increases in oleic and linoleic acids after MCD treatment. These increases were correlated with reduced body weight and white adipose tissue (WAT) mass, increased phosphorylation of hormone-sensitive lipase, and up-regulation of genes encoding carboxylesterase 3 and beta 2-adrenergic receptor in WAT, indicating accelerated lipolysis in adipocytes. The changes in serum fatty acids and WAT by MCD treatment were reversed by methionine supplementation, and similar alterations were detected in mice fed a methionine-deficient diet (MD), thus demonstrating that dietary methionine deficiency enhances lipolysis in WAT. MD treatment decreased glucose and increased fibroblast growth factor 21 in serum, thus exhibiting a similar metabolic phenotype as the fasting response. Comparison between MCD and choline-deficient diet (CD) treatments suggested that the addition of MD-induced metabolic alterations, such as WAT lipolysis, to CD-induced hepatic steatosis promotes liver injury. Collectively, these results demonstrate an important role for dietary methionine deficiency and WAT lipolysis in the development of MCD-NASH. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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