Maternal dietary resistant starch does not improve piglet's gut and liver metabolism when challenged with a high fat diet.
Animals
Animals, Newborn
Body Weight
/ drug effects
Cecum
/ metabolism
Cholesterol
/ blood
Diet, High-Fat
Fatty Acids, Volatile
/ blood
Female
Gene Expression Profiling
/ veterinary
Gene Regulatory Networks
/ drug effects
Liver
/ metabolism
Maternal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena
Pregnancy
Resistant Starch
/ administration & dosage
Sequence Analysis, RNA
Swine
Weaning
Maternal programming
Metabolic programming
Microbiota
Journal
BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Jun 2020
26 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
20
03
2019
accepted:
19
06
2020
entrez:
28
6
2020
pubmed:
28
6
2020
medline:
2
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In the past several years, the use of resistant starch (RS) as prebiotic has extensively been studied in pigs, and this mostly in the critical period around weaning. RS is believed to exert beneficial effects on the gastrointestinal tract mainly due to higher levels of short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and an improved microbiota profile. In this study, sows were fed digestible starch (DS) or RS during late gestation and lactation and the possible maternal effect of RS on the overall health of the progeny was assessed. Since RS is also described to have a positive effect on metabolism, and to investigate a metabolic programming of the progeny, half of the piglets per maternal diet were assigned to a high fat diet from weaning on to 10 weeks after. No bodyweight differences were found between the four experimental piglet groups. The high fat diet did however impact back fat thickness and meat percentage whereas maternal diet did not influence these parameters. The impact of the high fat diet was also reflected in higher levels of serum cholesterol. No major differences in microbiota could be distinguished, although higher levels of SCFA were seen in the colon of piglets born from RS fed sows, and some differences in SCFA production were observed in the caecum, mainly due to piglet diet. RNA-sequencing on liver and colon scrapings revealed minor differences between the maternal diet groups. Merely a handful of genes was differentially expressed between piglets from DS and RS sows, and network analysis showed only one significant cluster of genes in the liver due to the maternal diet that did not point to meaningful biological pathways. However, the high fat diet resulted in liver gene clusters that were significantly correlated with piglet diet, of which one is annotated for lipid metabolic processes. These clusters were not correlated with maternal diet. There is only a minor impact of maternal dietary RS on the progeny, reflected in SCFA changes. A high fat diet given to the progeny directly evokes metabolic changes in the liver, without any maternal programming by a RS diet.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In the past several years, the use of resistant starch (RS) as prebiotic has extensively been studied in pigs, and this mostly in the critical period around weaning. RS is believed to exert beneficial effects on the gastrointestinal tract mainly due to higher levels of short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and an improved microbiota profile. In this study, sows were fed digestible starch (DS) or RS during late gestation and lactation and the possible maternal effect of RS on the overall health of the progeny was assessed. Since RS is also described to have a positive effect on metabolism, and to investigate a metabolic programming of the progeny, half of the piglets per maternal diet were assigned to a high fat diet from weaning on to 10 weeks after.
RESULTS
RESULTS
No bodyweight differences were found between the four experimental piglet groups. The high fat diet did however impact back fat thickness and meat percentage whereas maternal diet did not influence these parameters. The impact of the high fat diet was also reflected in higher levels of serum cholesterol. No major differences in microbiota could be distinguished, although higher levels of SCFA were seen in the colon of piglets born from RS fed sows, and some differences in SCFA production were observed in the caecum, mainly due to piglet diet. RNA-sequencing on liver and colon scrapings revealed minor differences between the maternal diet groups. Merely a handful of genes was differentially expressed between piglets from DS and RS sows, and network analysis showed only one significant cluster of genes in the liver due to the maternal diet that did not point to meaningful biological pathways. However, the high fat diet resulted in liver gene clusters that were significantly correlated with piglet diet, of which one is annotated for lipid metabolic processes. These clusters were not correlated with maternal diet.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There is only a minor impact of maternal dietary RS on the progeny, reflected in SCFA changes. A high fat diet given to the progeny directly evokes metabolic changes in the liver, without any maternal programming by a RS diet.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32590936
doi: 10.1186/s12864-020-06854-x
pii: 10.1186/s12864-020-06854-x
pmc: PMC7318506
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fatty Acids, Volatile
0
Resistant Starch
0
Cholesterol
97C5T2UQ7J
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
439Subventions
Organisme : Fonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS (BE)
ID : 31248729
Références
PLoS One. 2011 May 09;6(5):e19594
pubmed: 21573022
J Nutr. 2007 Mar;137(3 Suppl 2):830S-7S
pubmed: 17311983
J Nutr Biochem. 2019 Mar;65:72-82
pubmed: 30654277
J Nutr. 2013 Dec;143(12):1889-98
pubmed: 24132577
J Agric Food Chem. 2015 Dec 9;63(48):10418-30
pubmed: 26566722
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009 Apr;94(4):1401-8
pubmed: 19141583
Eur J Pharm Sci. 2006 May;28(1-2):51-8
pubmed: 16488120
Sci Rep. 2016 Feb 12;6:20683
pubmed: 26868870
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2019 Jan;103(2):719-730
pubmed: 30415427
Bioinformatics. 2013 Jan 1;29(1):15-21
pubmed: 23104886
Metabolism. 2017 Mar;68:88-94
pubmed: 28183456
Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2013 Feb;164(2):417-27
pubmed: 23238590
Nat Commun. 2018 Jan 18;9(1):272
pubmed: 29348470
Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2016 Jul;45:52-62
pubmed: 27262986
BMC Bioinformatics. 2009 Feb 03;10:48
pubmed: 19192299
Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Jan 4;45(D1):D183-D189
pubmed: 27899595
Metabolism. 2017 Apr;69:171-176
pubmed: 28285647
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Dec;96(50):e9234
pubmed: 29390354
Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550
pubmed: 25516281
Anim Reprod Sci. 2015 Aug;159:109-17
pubmed: 26070910
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 3;13(7):e0199568
pubmed: 29969488
Int J Mol Sci. 2015 Dec 23;17(1):
pubmed: 26703591
Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 Aug;40(15):e115
pubmed: 22730293
J Anim Sci. 2012 Dec;90 Suppl 4:278-80
pubmed: 23365355
Clin Chem. 1972 Jun;18(6):499-502
pubmed: 4337382
Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig. 2013;64(1):19-24
pubmed: 23789308
Front Immunol. 2019 Jun 19;10:1381
pubmed: 31275319
J Anim Sci. 2017 Dec;95(12):5430-5438
pubmed: 29293780
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2018 Aug 17;84(17):
pubmed: 29959248
Front Microbiol. 2018 Feb 13;9:224
pubmed: 29487593
Anim Nutr. 2018 Sep;4(3):305-310
pubmed: 30175259
J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr (Berl). 2017 Feb;101(1):190-200
pubmed: 26848026
BMC Bioinformatics. 2008 Dec 29;9:559
pubmed: 19114008
J Anim Sci. 2016 Mar;94(3):1083-94
pubmed: 27065270
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019 Mar;21(3):592-600
pubmed: 30328263
World J Gastroenterol. 2016 Oct 28;22(40):8905-8909
pubmed: 27833381
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 17;10(2):e0118092
pubmed: 25689154
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 19;9(9):e107508
pubmed: 25238157
Br J Nutr. 2017 Jan;117(1):83-92
pubmed: 28115029
Cell. 2016 Jun 2;165(6):1332-1345
pubmed: 27259147
J Diet Suppl. 2017 May 4;14(3):334-345
pubmed: 27653386
Crit Rev Immunol. 2007;27(2):97-140
pubmed: 17725499
Nutrients. 2018 Sep 04;10(9):
pubmed: 30181501
J Anim Sci. 2012 Dec;90 Suppl 4:421-9
pubmed: 23365399
J Nutr. 2013 Mar;143(3):274-83
pubmed: 23325922
BMC Immunol. 2017 Jun 24;18(1):33
pubmed: 28646856
Microbiome. 2017 Feb 7;5(1):12
pubmed: 28166818
Br J Nutr. 2018 Jun;119(12):1366-1377
pubmed: 29845906
Mol Metab. 2017 Jan 26;6(4):340-351
pubmed: 28377873
Acta Vet Scand. 2013 Mar 14;55:24
pubmed: 23497718
J Nutr. 2007 Nov;137(11):2351-8
pubmed: 17951469