Fenretinide prevents diet-induced obesity and improves insulin sensitivity in LDLR −/− mice fed an atherogenic diet.
Male LDLR−/− mice were fed an obesogenic plus atherogenic, high-fat/high-cholesterol diet (HFD) +/- 0.04% FEN (FEN-HFD) or control diet for 14 weeks. All mice gained body weight until about week 8 when HFD mice continued to gain body weight but FEN-HFD mice and control mice body weights reached a similar plateau for the remainder of the study (Fig. 1A). This inhibition of body weight gain was due specifically to an inhibition of adiposity in FEN-HFD mice and not due to alterations in lean mass (Fig. 1B, 1C). Serum leptin levels were markedly elevated in HFD mice whereas in FEN-HFD mice levels were similar to control mice (Table 1).
Table 1
Serum and Tissue measurements. Data are represented as mean ± S.E.M. (n = 8 per group) and analysed by One-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni multiple comparison t-tests where **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001 and ****p ≤ 0.0001 (control compared to HFD) or ## p ≤ 0.01 and #### p ≤ 0.0001 (HFD compared to FEN-HFD).
| control | HFD | FEN-HFD |
Serum levels | | | |
Basal Glucose Week 11 | 9.32 ± 0.57 | 9.51 ± 0.76 | 11.12 ± 0.51 |
Basal Glucose Week 12 (mmol/L) | 7.65 ± 0.65 | 8.67 ± 0.57 | 9.75 ± 0.56 |
Insulin (ng/ml) | 1.23 ± 0.37 | 0.82 ± 0.12 | 0.69 ± 0.07 |
Leptin (ng/ml) | 6.94 ± 3.03 | 15.79 ± 3.75 | 7.56 ± 1.43 |
Cholesterol (µg) | 5.96 ± 1.00 | 17.21 ± 1.60 **** | 17.19 ± 0.57 **** |
Triglyceride (mg/ml) | 1.76 ± 0.195 | 4.41 ± 0.43 *** | 7.95 ± 0.60 ****/#### |
Tissue levels | | | |
Liver triglyceride (µg/mg) | 14.24 ± 1.47 | 35.28 ± 6.34 ** | 13.82 ± 0.97 ## |
As expected, FEN treatment decreased serum RBP4 levels compared to levels in control and HFD LDLR -/- mice (Fig. 1D). However, several classic molecular markers of functional white adipose tissue (e.g. PPARγ, GLUT4) were largely unaltered in LDLR−/− mice fed HFD +/- FEN, although there was a near 50% decrease in white adipose PEPCK, adiponectin, resistin and RBP4 (Supplemental Fig. 1). HFD induced physiological insulin resistance (Fig. 1E) and decreased acute hepatic insulin signalling to Akt (Fig. 1F, 1G). Whereas FEN treatment, resulted in improved insulin sensitivity and rescued hepatic Akt phosphorylation in response to insulin (Fig. 1F, 1G).
Despite these markedly beneficial physiological effects (decreased adiposity and improved insulin sensitivity) other parameters of glucose homeostasis were not similarly improved with FEN treatment. Basal serum glucose and serum insulin levels (in the 5-h fasted state) were similar in all three LDLR−/− groups and FEN treatment increased glucose intolerance compared to both HFD and control LDLR−/− mice (Table 1 and Fig. 1H). This effect of FEN was not attributable to changes in hepatic PEPCK, a known RA/RAR target gene (Fig. 1I) despite induction of hepatic Cyp26A1 and LRAT, classic RA/RAR target genes (Fig. 1I). In skeletal muscle, acute hepatic insulin signalling to Akt was not altered by HFD +/- FEN. FEN-HFD fed mice had significantly less total IR protein when compared to HFD (Supplemental Fig. 1). These initial findings suggested that the beneficial effects FEN treatment in LDLR-/- mice may have been more attributed to action in the liver than other insulin sensitive tissues.
Fenretinide inhibits hepatic triglyceride accumulation and development of steatosis and alters hepatic metabolic gene expression in LDLR −/− mice fed an atherogenic diet.
LDLR−/− mice are a recognised model of NAFLD, with high-fat feeding known to increase hepatic triglyceride accumulation (26). HFD resulted in a 2.5-fold increase in triglyceride content in the livers of LDLR−/− mice (Fig. 2A). FEN treatment completely prevented intrahepatic triglyceride accumulation to levels similar to those in control mice. HFD feeding also led to a profound change in hepatic morphology compared to control mice including substantial lipid droplet accumulation (Fig. 2B). Whereas, FEN-HFD mice exhibited normal liver histology with the absence of lipid droplet accumulation within hepatocytes. Hepatic lipid homeostasis is maintained via a network of key transcription factors such as PPARα, LXR and SREBP which regulate the expression of genes involved in fatty acid synthesis, oxidation and transport. Dysregulation of this network in response to excess nutrition or genetic perturbations causes excess hepatic lipid accumulation and thus NALFD.
HFD (including high cholesterol) feeding +/- FEN of LDLR−/− mice increased hepatic expression of LXR target genes, Srebp1c, Abca1 and Abcg1 and PPARα target genes Mogat, Vldr, Cd36 and Abcc3 (Mrp3) compared to control diet mice (Fig. 2C). HFD +/- FEN did not affect the expression of PPARα, LXR or RXR transcription factors in liver (Fig. 2D). Hepatic Dgat1, Acadm and Acox1, also all PPARα target genes, were unaffected by HFD but were modestly increased by FEN treatment. Cpt1 was not altered by either diet. However, FEN suppressed the statin target Hmgcr in liver (Fig. 2E) without affecting serum cholesterol levels (Table 1). HFD increased Hmgcr and Abcc3 in white adipose tissue and FEN trended to prevent these increases, in addition, FEN suppressed adipose Cd36 suggesting FEN also decreased adipose cholesterol in association with decreased adiposity (Supplemental Fig. 1).
Several human SNP/GWAS studies and more recent multi-omics data analyses have identified genes that have been described as key drivers of NAFLD (28). Of these, HFD did not affect the gene expression of hepatic Pklr, Pnpla3, Tm6sf2 or Hsd17b13 compared to control LDLR−/− mice. However, FEN treatment resulted in a significant decrease in both Tm6sf2 and Hsd17b13 expression when compared to control mice (Fig. 2F). FEN had no effect on Pklr or Pnpla3 in this disease model (Fig. 2F see discussion).
Fenretinide alters hepatic inflammatory and fibrotic gene expression.
Persistent excess lipid accumulation is associated with a pro-inflammatory environment and the activation of hepatic stellate cells, the development of fibrosis and the progression to NASH, a more severe disease state. Indeed, HFD resulted in an increase in expression of the pro-inflammatory cytokine TNFα, the macrophage marker Cd68 and profibrogenic signalling factor TGF-β that participates in hepatic stellate cell activation (29, 30). FEN treatment significantly inhibited the increase in Cd68 and trended to inhibit TNFα and TGF-β thus suggestive of a less pro-inflammatory, pro-fibrogenic environment (Fig. 3A). HFD did not alter the expression of IL-6 or Mcp-1 compared to control LDLR−/− however, FEN treatment resulted in approximately 2.5-fold and 8-fold increase in gene expression respectively (Fig. 3A). HFD+/-FEN did not alter expression of anti-inflammatory gene, IL-10.
HFD resulted in significant increases in the expression of genes driving fibrosis and tissue remodelling such as collagen (Col1a1, Col4a1), matrix metalloproteinases (Mmp2) and the tissue inhibitors of Mmps (Timp1, Timp2; Fig. 3B). FEN treatment almost completely inhibited the expression of all these genes to levels similar to those in control
LDLR−/− mice. A similar decrease in pro-inflammatory, macrophage and fibrosis genes with FEN treatment was determined in ApoE−/− mice treated with HFD+/- FEN (Supplemental Fig. 2). In contrast to the inhibition of these genes (TNFα, Col1a1etc), FEN induced a 5-fold increase in Mmp9 (Fig. 3B) which is indicative of retinoid-specific signalling and increased clearance of pro-fibrotic proteins (31). However, despite these improvements in response to FEN treatment, there were no differences in hepatic fibrosis between all three diet groups in LDLR−/− mice when determined by histologic stain picrosirius red (Fig. 3C).
Fenretinide treatment inhibits de novo ceramide synthesis and lipotoxicity.
Enzymes involved in ceramide biosynthesis, dihydroceramide desaturase, (DES1) and ceramide synthase (CerS)-6 have been implicated with increased ceramide production mediating obesity associated metabolic dysregulation in mice and humans (32). Hence, we next examined whether FEN treatment could inhibit the enzymes controlling de novo ceramide synthesis and thus lipotoxicity in the development of NAFLD/NASH in LDLR-/- mice.
HFD increased DES 1 in LDLR-/- mice (Fig. 4A and 4B), whereas FEN treatment prevented this increase so that protein levels were comparable to those control mice. Gene expression of hepatic dihydroceramide desaturase, Degs1, was unchanged with diet (Fig. 4C). However, HFD did trend to increase the hepatic Cers6 and Cers2 and FEN significantly decreased expression of Cers6 (Fig. 4C).
HFD increased several acyl ceramide species e.g., C18:0, C18:1 and C20:0 but total ceramide levels were not increased with HFD+/-FEN compared to control LDLR−/−. FEN treatment specifically decreased C26:0 ceramide but not any other species (Fig. 4D). However, FEN treatment increased all species of dihydroceramides measured from C16:0 to C26:1 (Fig. 4E) and total dihydroceramide levels by 4.7 to 8.9-fold compared to HFD and control mice respectively (Fig. 4F). Similar results were obtained in male and female ApoE−/− mice (Supplemental Fig. 3).
HFD also elevated levels of the ER stress protein GRP78/BIP (Supplemental Fig. 4) and FEN almost completely inhibited this increase. eIF2α phosphorylation and CHOP protein expression trended to be altered similarly, but HFD+/-FEN did not affect levels of autophagy proteins beclin-1 and p38 (Supplemental Fig. 4). Taken together, these results suggest that FEN mediated inhibition of DES1 protein and thus inhibition of excess ceramide biosynthesis and lipotoxicity may be part of the mechanism of preventing insulin resistance and NAFLD/NASH.
Fenretinide worsens hypertriglyceridemia and accelerates atherogenesis in LDLR −/− mice.
The liver packages triglycerides into lipoproteins together with cholesterol and apolipoproteins which are then transported in the circulation. Thus, next we investigated this system to determine the effects of HFD+/-FEN on development of dyslipidemia and atherosclerosis. HFD caused a major increase in circulating triglycerides and total cholesterol compared to control LDLR−/− mice (Fig. 5A, 5B). Surprisingly, FEN did not prevent the increase in serum cholesterol and caused a further increase in serum triglyceride when compared to HFD mice. HFD elevated circulating apolipoprotein B (ApoB) 48 levels, but FEN-HFD resulted in increased ApoB100 protein in both, liver and serum (Fig. 5C-5E) suggestive of unique effects respectively on further increasing very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) and/or LDL levels in LDLR−/− mice.
Since elevated circulating triglyceride, ApoB-containing lipoproteins and the ratio of ApoB100 to ApoB48 are major risk factors for the development of CVD (33), we next investigated the effect of HFD+/-FEN on atherosclerotic plaque formation. HFD resulted in atherosclerotic plaque formation in the aortic root, in the aortic arch and the descending aorta in LDLR−/− mice (Fig. 6A – 6D). FEN-treated mice had a similar level of plaque formation compared to HFD mice in the aortic root and in the aortic arch (Fig. 6A – 6C), but considerably more atherosclerotic plaque throughout the descending aorta (Fig. 6B – 6D). To determine if this was the case in another commonly used model for atherosclerosis, we examined plaque formation in ApoE−/− mice and found it to be accelerated in this background too. FEN-HFD resulted in significantly greater plaque accumulation in the descending aorta of female mice (Supplemental Fig. 5).
In addition to the role of excess de novo ceramide synthesis in the pathogenesis of metabolic diseases, ceramide generation via sphingomyelin hydrolysis has also been linked to atherosclerosis (see Choi et al for recent review (10)). FEN treatment in LDLR−/− mice lead to a striking 4-fold increase in hepatic Smpd3 expression, the gene encoding neutral Sphingomyelinase-2, recently shown to contribute to the development of atherosclerosis in ApoE−/− mice. (Fig. 6E). Similar results were obtained in our ApoE−/− mice (Supplemental Fig. 5). Smpd3 expression was not altered in white adipose tissue (Fig. 6E). We tested whether Smpd3 could be induced by FEN directly via RAR-signalling, to understand the mechanism behind this alteration. Acute RA injection led to a potent increase in Smpd3 expression at 6 hours but not earlier at 2 hours in the livers of lean C57/BL6 mice. FEN treatment also led to an increase in Smpd3 expression at 6 hours, but the effect was not as striking as with RA treatment (Fig. 6F).
Next, we examined whether an increase in hepatic Smpd3 expression could result in an increase in circulating ceramides and thereby contribute to the increased development of atherosclerosis FEN treatment in LDLR-/- mice. FEN increased total serum ceramide levels 1.6-fold more than in HFD mice (Fig. 7). We determined an increase in a number of ceramide species from FA acyl groups 18:0 to 26:0. FEN also increased total serum dihydroceramide levels 8-fold higher than in HFD mice with increases in every species measured (Fig. 7).
Thus, overall, these data suggest that FEN treatment was beneficial in the treatment of pathologies associated with an obesogenic diet and excess fat gain, thereby attenuating the development of insulin resistance lipotoxicity and NAFLD/NASH, but at the detriment of the cardiovascular system, at least in genetic mouse models lacking LDLR−/− or ApoE−/−. Mechanistically, FEN treatment results in retinoic acid signalling mediated induction of sphingomyelinase gene Smpd3 and an increase in circulating ceramides and thereby contributes to the increased development of atherosclerosis in LDLR-/- mice (as illustrated in Supplemental Fig. 7).