Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand.
School of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand.
Nutrients. 2023 Mar 17;15(6):1462. doi: 10.3390/nu15061462.
High-sugar diet-induced prediabetes and obesity are a global current problem that can be the result of glucose or fructose. However, a head-to-head comparison between both sugars on health impact is still lacking, and dfa1 has never been tested, and has recently been isolated from healthy volunteers. The mice were administered with the high glucose or fructose preparation in standard mouse chaw with or without dfa1 gavage, on alternate days, and in vitro experiments were performed using enterocyte cell lines (Caco2) and hepatocytes (HepG2). After 12 weeks of experiments, both glucose and fructose induced a similar severity of obesity (weight gain, lipid profiles, and fat deposition at several sites) and prediabetes condition (fasting glucose, insulin, oral glucose tolerance test, and Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA score)). However, fructose administration induced more severe liver damage (serum alanine transaminase, liver weight, histology score, fat components, and oxidative stress) than the glucose group, while glucose caused more prominent intestinal permeability damage (FITC-dextran assay) and serum cytokines (TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-10) compared to the fructose group. Interestingly, all of these parameters were attenuated by dfa1 administration. Because there was a subtle change in the analysis of the fecal microbiome of mice with glucose or fructose administration compared to control mice, the probiotics altered only some microbiome parameters (Chao1 and abundance). For in vitro experiments, glucose induced more damage to high-dose lipopolysaccharide (LPS) (1 µg/mL) to enterocytes (Caco2 cell) than fructose, as indicated by transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER), supernatant cytokines (TNF-α and IL-8), and glycolysis capacity (by extracellular flux analysis). Meanwhile, both glucose and fructose similarly facilitated LPS injury in hepatocytes (HepG2 cell) as evaluated by supernatant cytokines (TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-10) and extracellular flux analysis. In conclusion, glucose possibly induced a more severe intestinal injury (perhaps due to LPS-glucose synergy) and fructose caused a more prominent liver injury (possibly due to liver fructose metabolism), despite a similar effect on obesity and prediabetes. Prevention of obesity and prediabetes with probiotics was encouraged.
高糖饮食诱导的糖尿病前期和肥胖是一个全球性的问题,可能是葡萄糖或果糖的结果。然而,两种糖对健康影响的直接比较仍然缺乏,并且 dfa1 从未被测试过,最近才从健康志愿者中分离出来。将小鼠用高葡萄糖或果糖制剂与标准小鼠咀嚼物一起或不与 dfa1 灌胃交替给药,进行体外实验使用肠细胞系(Caco2)和肝细胞(HepG2)。经过 12 周的实验,葡萄糖和果糖都导致了类似严重的肥胖(体重增加、脂质谱和多个部位的脂肪沉积)和糖尿病前期状态(空腹血糖、胰岛素、口服葡萄糖耐量试验和稳态模型评估胰岛素抵抗(HOMA 评分))。然而,与葡萄糖组相比,果糖给药导致更严重的肝损伤(血清丙氨酸转氨酶、肝重、组织学评分、脂肪成分和氧化应激),而与果糖组相比,葡萄糖导致更明显的肠道通透性损伤(FITC-右旋糖酐测定)和血清细胞因子(TNF-α、IL-6 和 IL-10)。有趣的是,所有这些参数都通过 dfa1 给药得到了缓解。由于与对照组小鼠相比,葡萄糖或果糖给药的小鼠粪便微生物组的分析有细微变化,益生菌仅改变了一些微生物组参数(Chao1 和丰度)。对于体外实验,葡萄糖诱导高剂量脂多糖(LPS)(1 µg/mL)对肠细胞(Caco2 细胞)的损伤比果糖更严重,如跨上皮电阻(TEER)、上清液细胞因子(TNF-α 和 IL-8)和糖酵解能力(通过细胞外通量分析)所示。同时,葡萄糖和果糖都通过上清液细胞因子(TNF-α、IL-6 和 IL-10)和细胞外通量分析相似地促进了 LPS 在肝细胞(HepG2 细胞)中的损伤。总之,尽管对肥胖和糖尿病前期有类似的影响,但葡萄糖可能引起更严重的肠道损伤(可能是由于 LPS-葡萄糖协同作用),而果糖引起更明显的肝脏损伤(可能是由于肝脏果糖代谢)。鼓励使用益生菌预防肥胖和糖尿病前期。