The effect of dietary fat intake on hepatic gene expression in LG/J AND SM/J mice

  • Charlyn G Partridge1, 4Email author,

    Affiliated with

    • Gloria L Fawcett1, 2,

      Affiliated with

      • Bing Wang1,

        Affiliated with

        • Clay F Semenkovich3 and

          Affiliated with

          • James M Cheverud1, 5

            Affiliated with

            BMC Genomics201415:99

            DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-99

            Received: 3 May 2013

            Accepted: 15 January 2014

            Published: 5 February 2014

            Abstract

            Background

            The liver plays a major role in regulating metabolic homeostasis and is vital for nutrient metabolism. Identifying the genetic factors regulating these processes could lead to a greater understanding of how liver function responds to a high-fat diet and how that response may influence susceptibilities to obesity and metabolic syndrome. In this study we examine differences in hepatic gene expression between the LG/J and SM/J inbred mouse strains and how gene expression in these strains is affected by high-fat diet. LG/J and SM/J are known to differ in their responses to a high-fat diet for a variety of obesity- and diabetes-related traits, with the SM/J strain exhibiting a stronger phenotypic response to diet.

            Results

            Dietary intake had a significant effect on gene expression in both inbred lines. Genes up-regulated by a high-fat diet were involved in biological processes such as lipid and carbohydrate metabolism; protein and amino acid metabolic processes were down regulated on a high-fat diet. A total of 259 unique transcripts exhibited a significant diet-by-strain interaction. These genes tended to be associated with immune function. In addition, genes involved in biochemical processes related to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) manifested different responses to diet between the two strains. For most of these genes, SM/J had a stronger response to the high-fat diet than LG/J.

            Conclusions

            These data show that dietary fat impacts gene expression levels in SM/J relative to LG/J, with SM/J exhibiting a stronger response. This supports previous data showing that SM/J has a stronger phenotypic response to high-fat diet. Based upon these findings, we suggest that SM/J and its cross with the LG/J strain provide a good model for examining non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and its role in metabolic syndrome.

            Keywords

            Liver Dietary fat Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease NAFLD Gene expression Microarray SM/J LG/J

            Background

            The relationship between dietary intake and metabolic syndrome is complex, with a number of genes, genetic interactions, and gene by environment interactions having significant effects on disease susceptibility and severity. Obesity-related metabolic disorders can occur when dietary energy intake chronically exceeds expenditure leading to a variety of conditions that include increased blood pressure, insulin resistance, and serum cholesterol levels [1]. Obesity per se is significantly influenced by both environmental factors, such as diet and exercise, and genetic factors, with heritability estimates ranging from 40% to 75% [2, 3]. More critically, there is genetic variation among individuals in their responses to an obesogenic diet, with some being more likely to develop aspects of metabolic syndrome than others [4, 5].

            While metabolism involves a number of different organs, the liver is one of the key organs regulating nutrient homeostasis. Because of its direct involvement in dietary nutrient metabolism, the liver’s functional association to dietary obesity and metabolic syndrome is of keen interest. Previous work has shown that increased levels of dietary fat intake are associated with increased fat deposition in the liver and can lead to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) [68]. This increase in hepatic fat is associated with a higher risk of obesity [9], insulin resistance [1012], and type 2 diabetes mellitus [13, 14]. As with obesity and metabolic syndrome, it has been suggested that susceptibility to NAFLD also has a strong genetic basis [1519] with relatively high heritability values after controlling for age, sex, race, and body mass index [17]. Because of the strong association between hepatic fat accumulation and metabolic syndrome disorders, understanding how genetic factors influence the way in which the liver responds to increased dietary fat levels is critical.

            Whole-genome expression studies have previously examined the effect of dietary fat intake on hepatic gene expression. A review of these studies shows that many of the genes whose expression is affected by dietary fat are related to lipid metabolism, adipocyte differentiation, defense against foreign bodies or injury, and stress response, particularly response to oxidative stress [20]. In a comprehensive study, Shockley et al. [21] examined hepatic gene expression profiles in relation to dietary fat and cholesterol for 10 different inbred mouse strains. Over all 10 strains, only Gene Ontology (GO) terms for cholesterol biosynthesis and isoprenoid metabolism were repressed by a high-fat diet in all of the strains. No biological GO terms were induced by a high-fat diet across all strains, indicating that differences in genetic background have a dominant effect on which genes and pathways respond to high dietary fat levels. However, the level of fat in the high-fat diet used by Shockley et al. [21] was modest (30% calories from fat), the low fat diet was not matched for other ingredients [22], and the dietary treatment lasted only from 6–10 weeks of age.

            This study was designed to evaluate hepatic gene expression profiles for two mouse strains, LG/J and SM/J, on both a low and a high-fat diet. While the effect of dietary intake on hepatic gene expression has been assessed in a number of mouse strains, including SM/J [21], evaluating differences in expression levels between SM/J and LG/J provides a unique opportunity to examine the genetic factors associated with a number of obesity and metabolic syndrome related traits. LG/J and SM/J mice have been shown to differ in their response to a high-fat diet for traits involved in various metabolic syndrome domains [23, 24]. SM/J individuals tend to be more responsive to the effect of a high-fat diet in relation to body weight, fat depot weight, organ weight, basal glucose levels, and triglyceride levels [23, 24]. In addition, quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for a number of these phenotypes, including obesity [2529], diabetes [25, 30], serum lipid levels [25, 31], fatty liver [32] and multiple domains of metabolic syndrome [33], have been mapped in populations derived from the intercross of these two strains. Thus, the goals of this project are twofold. First, we describe general differences in gene expression between these strains, between males and females, and between animals reared on low- and high-fat diets. More critically, we identify genes whose response to a high-fat diet differs between the LG/J and SM/J strains. Second, we relate these expression differences to genes located within previously defined QTLs where genetic effects were found to be diet-specific.

            Results

            Global gene expression

            Of the 26,209 gene transcripts that showed significant expression levels, a total of 4,796 unique genes were differentially expressed among treatments. Of those, 3,880 transcripts were significantly different between SM/J and LG/J strains (Additional file 1), 1,224 were significantly different between males and females (Additional file 2), and 1,676 transcripts were significantly different by diet (Additional file 3). Three hundred transcripts showed a strain by diet interaction, 26 showed a significant strain by sex interaction, and only two showed a significant diet-by-sex-by-strain interaction, both of which corresponded to the gene Cidea (Table 1).
            Table 1

            Number of differentially expressed genes for each factor and their interactions

            Factor

            Number of significant genes

            Diet

            1676

            Sex

            1224

            Strain

            3880

            Diet*Sex

            26

            Diet*Strain

            300

            Sex*Strain

            0

            Diet*Sex*Strain

            2

            Strain Effects. Forty-seven percent of the genes (1,840 gene transcripts) that were significantly different by strain were expressed more strongly in the LG/J strain and 53% more strongly in SM/J (2,040 gene transcripts) (Additional file 1). The genes that were significantly over-expressed within both LG/J and SM/J strains represented similar biological processes, such as lipid metabolism, protein metabolism and carbohydrate metabolic processes (Additional file 4). There were, however, differences in the biochemical pathways these genes represented (Additional file 4). Biochemical pathways that contained the largest number of genes over-expressed in SM/J included several response-to-stimulus pathways, including the platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), integrin, and inflammation by chemokine and cytokine signaling pathways. In addition, a relatively large number of genes involved in apoptosis were over-expressed in SM/J. In LG/J, the metabolic-related pathways that were enriched included the purine metabolism and the cholesterol biosynthesis pathway. Other interesting pathways over-expressed in LG/J included the endothelin signaling pathway, the angiogensis pathway, and the insulin/IGF pathway.

            Sex Effects. Of the 1,224 expressed transcripts that were significantly different between males and females, 46% were higher in males (568 gene transcripts) and 54% were higher in females (656 gene transcripts) (Additional file 2). As expected, genes that are sex-linked showed significant differences in expression between the sexes. Inactive X specific transcripts (Xist), located on the X chromosome, displayed the largest differences between males and females. Genes located on the Y chromosome, such as DEAD box polypeptide 3, Y-linked (Ddx3y), eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2, subunit 3, structural gene Y-linked (Eif2s3y) and ubiquitously transcribed tetratricopeptide repeat gene, Y chromosome (Uty), were expressed more in males. A number of cytochrome p-450 genes (Cyp) were also differentially expressed between the sexes (Additional file 2). Both males and females exhibited high expression in genes related to biological processes, such as lipid metabolism, carbohydrate metabolism, response to toxin, apoptosis and the generation of precursor metabolites and energy (Additional file 5), but the specific genes involved differed between males and females. On the other hand, the biochemical pathways represented by genes over-expressed in females differed substantially from those up-regulated in males. Pathways with genes expressed significantly higher in females were typically associated with amino acid biosynthesis, whereas pathways associated with increased expression in males were involved in a number of signaling pathways, including the heterotrimeric G-protein signaling pathway-Gi alpha and Gs alpha mediated pathway, the endothelial signaling pathway, and the cortocotropin releasing factor receptor signaling pathway (Additional file 5).

            Response to Diet. For genes that were expressed differently on high and low-fat diets, 46% were higher in high-fat fed individuals (775 genes transcripts), while 54% (901 gene transcripts) were higher in low-fat fed individuals (Additional file 3). GO terms that were enriched for genes that showed significantly higher expression in high-fat fed individuals were involved in lipid and carbohydrate metabolism. Processes enriched in low-fat fed individuals included those involved in protein and amino acid metabolic processes (Additional file 6). Interesting biochemical pathways that were enriched by genes showing higher expression with high-fat diet are involved in stress response, such the p53 pathway, integrin signaling pathway, ubiquitin promeasome pathway, and the inflammation-mediated by chemokine and cytokine signaling pathways. Those enriched with genes that exhibited higher expression on a low-fat diet included blood coagulation, EGF receptor signaling, cholesterol biosynthesis, and a number of amino acid biosynthesis pathways (Additional file 6).

            Diet-by-Strain Interactions. There were 259 genes (300 gene transcripts) whose expression exhibited a significant diet-by-strain interaction, i.e. diet affected expression differently in the two strains (Additional file 7). Gene expression was much more responsive to the high-fat diet in SM/J than in LG/J, with 95% of the diet related expression changes occurring in SM/J. GO terms enriched for genes exhibiting a diet-by-strain interaction included those involved in immune function, lipid and carbohydrate metabolic processes, and apoptosis (Table 2). The biochemical pathways that were significantly enriched included the plasminogen activating pathway, p53 pathway, angiogenesis, the integrin signaling pathway, and the blood coagulation pathway (Table 2).
            Table 2

            Biological processes and biochemical pathways enriched by genes exhibiting a diet by strain interaction

            GO annotation term

            GO annotation

            Mus musculus genes FEFLIST (26185)

            Number of genes in pathway

            Number of genes expected

            Over/under represented

            P-value

            Biological Process

                  

            immune system process

            GO:0002376

            2974

            62

            20.22

            +

            1.72×10-16

             antigen processing and presentation

            GO:0019882

            95

            10

            0.65

            +

            1.54×10-9

             antigen processing and presentation of peptide or polysaccharide antigen via MHC class II

            GO:0002504

            35

            6

            0.24

            +

            1.90×10-7

            response to stimulus

            GO:0050896

            2486

            52

            16.9

            +

            1.01×10-13

             response to stress

            GO:006950

            547

            13

            3.72

            +

            1.08×10-4

             cellular defense response

            GO:0006968

            564

            16

            3.83

            +

            1.93×10-6

             response to toxin

            GO:0009636

            121

            9

            0.82

            +

            1.92×10-7

             signal transduction

            GO:0007165

            4858

            52

            33.02

            +

            3.68×10-4

             immune response

            GO:0006955

            900

            16

            6.12

            +

            4.75×10-4

            Unclassified

             

            10946

            39

            74.41

            -

            1.81×10-8

             metabolic process

            GO:0008152

            9603

            93

            65.28

            +

            1.63×10-5

             primary metabolic process

            GO:0044238

            9122

            91

            62.01

            +

            6.03×10-6

             lipid metabolic process

            GO:0006629

            1266

            24

            8.61

            +

            6.06×10-6

             carbohydrate metabolic process

            GO:005975

            1038

            19

            7.06

            +

            9.55×10-5

             cellular process

            GO:0009987

            7133

            69

            48.49

            +

            5.51×10-4

             endocytosis

            GO:0006897

            604

            14

            4.11

            +

            7.65×10-5

             apoptosis

            GO:0006915

            1035

            18

            7.04

            +

            2.73×10-4

             developmental process

            GO:0032502

            3296

            38

            22.41

            +

            7.37×10-4

             system development

            GO:0048731

            2222

            29

            15.1

            +

            5.23×10-4

             transport

            GO:0006810

            3009

            36

            20.45

            +

            5.33×10-4

            Biochemical Pathway

                  

            Plasminogen activation cascade

             

            18

            3

            0.12

            +

            2.74×10-4

            p53 pathway

             

            127

            5

            0.86

            +

            1.89×10-3

            Angiogenesis

             

            193

            6

            1.31

            +

            2.22×10-3

            Blood coagulation

             

            55

            3

            0.37

            +

            6.52×10-3

            Integrin signalling pathway

             

            185

            5

            1.26

            +

            9.06×10-3

            Androgen/estrogene/progesterone biosynthesis

             

            28

            2

            0.19

            +

            1.59×10-2

            Ornithine degradation

             

            3

            1

            0.02

            +

            2.02×10-2

            FAS signaling pathway

             

            38

            2

            0.26

            +

            2.80×10-2

            Methylmalonyl pathway

             

            5

            1

            0.03

            +

            3.34×10-2

            Xanthine and guanine salvage pathway

             

            6

            1

            0.04

            +

            4.00×10-2

            p53 pathway feedback loops 2

             

            51

            2

            0.35

            +

            4.77×10-2

            In order to evaluate gene clusters that responded similarly for genes exhibiting a diet-by-strain interaction, a K-means clustering analysis was preformed and produced 2 stable gene clusters. Cluster 1 is composed of genes involved in response to stimulus pathways, such as the p53 pathway, integrin signaling pathway, and the TGF signaling pathway (Additional file 8). Cluster two was comprised of pathways related to multiple salvage pathways, the plaminogen activating cascade, and blood coagulation (Additonal file 8). Hierarchical biclustering of the data also show that high-fat fed SM/J individuals clustered separately from all other groups for these genes (Figure 1).
            http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2164-15-99/MediaObjects/12864_2013_5901_Fig1_HTML.jpg
            Figure 1

            Heat map of genes exhibiting a diet by strain interaction. Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed producing two clusters, with the high-fat fed SM/J group clustering separately from all other groups. HF-LG: High-fat LG/J; HF-SM: High-fat SM/J; LF-LG: Low-fat LG/J; LF-SM: Low-fat SM/J.

            Within Strain Effects. Analyzing SM/J and LG/J separately for the effects of diet and sex on gene expression produced very different results. When SM/J was analyzed separately, diet had the strongest effect on gene expression with 2,137 gene transcripts being differentially expressed. Of these, 1,200 transcripts were up-regulated and 937 down-regulated on the high-fat diet (Additional file 9). Only 25 gene transcripts showed differential expression in relation to diet in the LG/J strain, 15 with increased expression and 10 with decreased expression on a high-fat diet (Additional file 9).

            The major factor responsible for variation in LG/J gene expression was sex, with 637 transcripts differentially expressed between males and females. Of the 637 transcripts, 396 were higher in females and 241 were higher in males. This is in sharp contrast to the sex effects observed in SM/J, where only 190 transcripts showed differential expression (Additional file 10).

            Candidate Genes within QTLs

            Studies of these strains have previously mapped QTLs affecting obesity, diabetes-related traits, and serum lipid levels in the LG,SM Advanced Intercross Lines (AIL). We correlated the list of genes in these QTLs with those demonstrating a differential response between strains to a high fat diet. Of the 259 genes showing different responses in LG/J and SM/J in relation to the high fat diet, 18 are located within QTLs previously mapped for serum lipid levels [31], 24 are located within QTLs mapped for obesity [27], and 20 are located within regions previous associated with diabetes [30] (Table 3). Chi-square analysis show QTLs previously identified as associated with serum lipid levels and obesity were significantly enriched with genes showing significant diet-by-strain interactions (Obesity: χ 2=5.95, p=0.015; Lipids: χ 2=6.91, p=0.008). However, QTLs associated with diabetes were not enriched (χ 2=1.49; p=0.22). This result indicates that differential gene expression between strains in response to diet is the likely source of at least some of the mapped QTL effects.
            Table 3

            Genes transcripts with a significant diet by strain interaction for lipid, obesity, and diabetes QTLs

            QTL

            Probe ID

            Gene ID

            Chromosome

            Start

            Stop

            Strand

            Lipid Serum QTLs

                  

            Dserum1b

            ILMN_2717387

            Fbxo36

            1

            84836416

            84897062

            +

            Dserum1b

            ILMN_2502317

            Ugt1a10

            1

            89951963

            90115579

            +

            Dserum1b

            ILMN_2754718

            Ugt1a9

            1

            89967375

            90115572

            +

            Dserum1c

            ILMN_2954575

            Arhgap30

            1

            173319085

            173340429

            +

            Dserum3a

            ILMN_2529128

            LOC329702

            3

            89169322

            89178368

            +

            Dserum3a

            ILMN_2883392

            S100a11

            3

            93324410

            93330209

            +

            Dserum3a

            ILMN_1213457

            Snx27

            3

            94301466

            94386638

            -

            Dserum3a

            ILMN_2837802

            BC028528

            3

            95687877

            95695928

            -

            Dserum3a

            ILMN_2656422

            BC028528

            3

            95687877

            95695928

            -

            Dserum4a

            ILMN_2674367

            Agrn

            4

            155539399

            155560010

            -

            Dserum5a

            ILMN_2690061

            Hnrpdl

            5

            100462596

            100468683

            -

            Dserum8a

            ILMN_2719473

            Asf1b

            8

            86479406

            86494096

            +

            Dserum10a

            ILMN_3100812

            Gpx4

            10

            79509911

            79519184

            +

            Dserum10a

            ILMN_2684855

            Gpx4

            10

            79509911

            79519184

            +

            Dserum17a

            ILMN_2729447

            9030612M13Rik

            17

            32910210

            32924492

            -

            Dserum17a

            ILMN_1236993

            March2

            17

            33825041

            33855598

            -

            Dserum17a

            ILMN_1226525

            H2-Ab1

            17

            34400185

            34406355

            +

            Dserum17a

            ILMN_2631423

            H2-Ab1

            17

            34400185

            34406355

            +

            Dserum17a

            ILMN_2913716

            H2-Ab1

            17

            3440185

            34406355

            +

            Dserum17a

            ILMN_1239102

            H2-Eb1

            17

            34442843

            34453144

            +

            Dserum17a

            ILMN_2741935

            H2-Ea

            17

            34479878

            34481588

            -

            Dserum17a

            ILMN_2599858

            Pbx2

            17

            34729416

            34734286

            +

            Dserum18a

            ILMN_1226868

            Mapk4

            18

            74088140

            74225013

            -

            Dserum19a

            ILMN_2677859

            Insl6

            19

            29395844

            29399808

            -

            Dserum19a

            ILMN_2738893

            Ermp1

            19

            29682704

            29722905

            -

            Obesity QTLs

                  

            Dob2a

            ILMN_1220441

            Camk1d

            2

            5214503

            5635561

            -

            Dob3a

            ILMN_1219717

            Sort1

            3

            108087009

            108164429

            +

            Dob4a

            ILMN_247997

            2310040A07Rik/Enho

            4

            41585177

            41587357

            -

            Dob6a

            ILMN_2656021

            Osbpl3

            6

            50243329

            50406200

            -

            Dob6a

            ILMN_2974064

            Osbpl3

            6

            50243329

            50406200

            -

            Dob6e

            ILMN_1221060

            Pparg

            6

            115372091

            115440419

            +

            Dob6e

            ILMN_1216056

            2510049J12Rik

            6

            115533562

            115542594

            -

            Dob6e

            ILMN_2956092

            Rassf4

            6

            116583026

            116623809

            -

            Dob6e

            ILMN_2686244

            Rassf4

            6

            116583026

            116623809

            -

            Dob6e

            ILMN_2672698

            Rassf4

            6

            116583026

            116623809

            -

            Dob8a

            ILMN_2912598

            Ap3m2

            8

            23897827

            23916099

            -

            Dob8c

            ILMN_2719473

            Asf1b

            8

            86479406

            86494096

            +

            Dob10b

            ILMN_1215807

            Glipr1

            10

            111422511

            111439687

            -

            Doc10c

            ILMN_3162796

            Cnot2

            10

            115922222

            116018557

            -

            Doc10c

            ILMN_2878071

            Lyz

            10

            116724853

            116729924

            -

            Dob13a

            ILMN_2865016

            Cd83

            13

            43880572

            43898501

            +

            Dob14a

            ILMN_2627022

            Itih4

            14

            31699662

            31715167

            +

            Dob14a

            ILMN_1231336

            Itih3

            14

            31721762

            31736731

            -

            Dob17b

            ILMN_1236993

            March2

            17

            33825041

            33855598

            -

            Dob17b

            ILMN_1226525

            H2-Ab1

            17

            34400185

            34406355

            +

            Dob17b

            ILMN_2631423

            H2-Ab1

            17

            34400185

            34406355

            +

            Dob17b

            ILMN_2913716

            H2-Ab1

            17

            34400185

            34406355

            +

            Dob17b

            ILMN_1239102

            H2-Eb1

            17

            34442843

            34453144

            +

            Dob17b

            ILMN_2741935

            H2-Ea

            17

            34479878

            34481588

            -

            Dob17b

            ILMN_2599858

            Pbx2

            17

            34729416

            34734286

            +

            Dob17b

            ILMN_2665266

            H2-T10

            17

            36254035

            36258389

            -

            Dob17b

            ILMN_1230878

            H2-T10

            17

            36254035

            36258389

            -

            Dob17b

            ILMN_2783997

            Trim10

            17

            37006537

            37014750

            +

            Dob17b

            ILMN_2426853

            Ubd

            17

            37330873

            37332782

            +

            Dob17b

            ILMN_2964185

            H2-M2

            17

            37617796

            37620474

            -

            Dob17b

            ILMN_2742311

            Cyp39a1

            17

            43804474

            4388794

            +

            Dob19a

            ILMN_1230587

            Lpxn

            19

            12873133

            12908301

            +

            Diabetes QTLs

                  

            Ddiab3a

            ILMN_1222860

            381484

            3

            15848070

            15906332

            -

            Ddiab4a

            ILMN_2773215

            Epb4.1l4b

            4

            57004844

            57156309

            -

            Ddiab4a

            ILMN_2775064

            Epb4.1l4b

            4

            57004844

            57156309

            -

            Ddiab4b

            ILMN_2736168

            Ppt1

            4

            122513485

            122536418

            +

            Ddiab5a

            ILMN_2424721

            Pdgfa

            5

            139451968

            139473324

            -

            Ddiab6a

            ILMN_2656021

            Ospl3

            6

            50243329

            50406200

            -

            Ddiab6a

            ILMN_2974064

            Osbpl3

            6

            50243329

            50406200

            -

            Ddiab5d

            ILMN_1221060

            Pparg

            6

            115372091

            115440419

            +

            Ddiab5d

            ILMN_1216056

            2510049J12Rik

            6

            115533562

            115542594

            -

            Ddiab7b

            ILMN_2658804

            Rras

            7

            52273348

            52277016

            +

            Ddiab7c

            ILMN_2707494

            Mcee

            7

            71537531

            71557007

            +

            Ddiab8a

            ILMN_2912598

            Ap3m2

            8

            23897827

            23916099

            -

            Diab8b

            ILMN_2767918

            Ifi30

            8

            73286673

            73290562

            -

            Diab8b

            ILMN_1228213

            Ifi30

            8

            73286673

            73290562

            -

            Diab8b

            ILMN_2749747

            Haus8

            8

            73772460

            73796833

            -

            Ddiab11a

            ILMN_2727503

            Igfbp3

            11

            7106089

            7113900

            -

            Diab11d

            ILMN_3147074

            Pecam1

            11

            106515531

            106611942

            -

            Ddiab13a

            ILMN_2595395

            Slc17a2

            13

            23898862

            23917049

            +

            Ddiab13a

            ILMN_1217058

            Slc17a2

            13

            23898862

            23917049

            +

            Ddiab13c

            ILMN_3122081

            5133401N09Rik

            13

            58259015

            58266052

            +

            Ddiab14b

            ILMN_2627022

            Itih4

            14

            31699662

            31715167

            +

            Ddiab14b

            ILMN_1231336

            Itih3

            14

            31721762

            31736731

            -

            Diab15b

            ILMN_2543688

            Snord123

            15

            32170324

            32176484

             

            Ddiab16a

            ILMN_1222821

            Rogdi

            16

            5008823

            5013610

            -

            Ddiab17a

            ILMN_2933463

            Plg

            17

            12571474

            12612250

            +

            Ddiab19a

            ILMN_2744398

            Ostf1

            19

            18653818

            18706279

            -

            Transcripts in bold are located just outside the 95% CI for the QTL and were not included in the enrichment analysis.

            Discussion

            This study has two main goals. The first, to characterize hepatic gene expression profiles for SM/J and LG/J inbred mouse strains and examine how these profiles were influenced by diet and sex. The second goal is to examine how expression profiles differ between these two strains in relation to diet, and to characterize potential candidate genes located within previously mapped QTLs that are associated with traits from metabolic syndrome domains. As expected, our results show that diet, sex, and strain all have significant impacts on gene expression, with many genes showing strain-specific dietary responses for gene expression.

            Overall, the impact of the high-fat diet on gene expression appears to be similar to that found in other expression studies [20]. There are many more effects than noted in Shockley et al. [21] perhaps because of the higher amount of fat in the diet utilized here (42% vs 30%) and the prolongation of the dietary treatment, from 6–10 weeks compared to 3–20 weeks in our study. A number of defense and stress response pathways were enriched by genes over-expressed in high-fat fed mice, including the p53, the inflammation mediated by chemokine and cytokine, and the ubiquitin signaling pathways, which regulate cellular damage response and influence inflammatory response. Enrichment of these pathways supports previous work suggesting that a high-fat diet can lead to cellular oxidative stress and increased inflammation within the liver, potentially resulting in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), liver fibrosis, and further exacerbating insulin resistance [3438].

            SM/J and LG/J differ in their phenotypic response to a high-fat diet, with SM/J being more responsive than LG/J for many obesity, diabetes-related, and serum lipid level traits [23, 24]. While these phenotypic differences between these strains have previously been observed, the stark differences in how diet impacts gene expression is somewhat surprising. A total of 259 unique genes displayed significant diet-by-strain interactions. In 95% of these cases, SM/J mice displayed a greater change in expression in relation to diet than LG/J mice. Hierarchical cluster analysis of these genes grouped high-fat fed SM/J separately from all other groups (Figure 1), again demonstrating that SM/J is more responsive to dietary fat intake than LG/J. This suggests that genetic background plays a significant role in influencing how genes respond to high-fat diet.

            Similar to these results, Shockey et al’s. [21] assessment of how high fat diet affected gene expression showed that only a few biochemical pathways were commonly affected across the strains that were analyzed. This suggests that there is little consistency between strains in what is up- or down-regulated on a high fat diet. This is an important consideration because it means that genetic background plays a significant role in how diet impacts gene expression in this system. Thus, one cannot characterize a general murine response to a high fat diet for hepatic expression using any specific strain, such as C57BL/6J. While this may seem like an obstacle for murine studies of hepatic gene expression, it also provides a great opportunity to examine how genetic background influences these effects.

            The biological processes that are most enriched with genes showing diet-by-strain interactions were mainly related to immune system processes, specifically antigen processing and presentation. Most of the differences were driven by the effects of the high-fat diet in SM/J mice. Associated with these are a number of transcripts involving major histocompatibilty complexes (MHC) I and II (Hfe, H2-D1, H2-D4, H2-Ea, H2-Ab1, H2-DMa) and killer cell activation (Tyrobp, Pira11). In most cases, there was a significant increase in the expression of these genes with a high-fat diet in SM/J and either no change or a slight decrease in expression in LG/J. This suggests a heightened immune response in SM/J with a high-fat diet, compared to LG/J mice. There is substantial evidence suggesting a strong association between immune response and metabolic function [39]. In particularly, diets that are high in fat have been shown to trigger immune response, particularly through inflammation in a number of different tissues (including adipose and liver) [4042]. For example, MHC-II expression tends to increase when cells are under oxidative stress [43, 44], and increased expression of MHC-II associated genes in hepatic cells can be induced by altering levels of dietary cholesterol [45]. Severe oxidative stress can lead to cellular damage, resulting in further hepatic inflammation, and potentially the development of heptatic steatosis and insulin resistance [3438]. The difference in immune response in relation to diet between these two strains may, in part, explain why they differ in their response to dietary treatment. In particular, it provides some information as to why SM/J mice may show diminished glucose tolerance in comparison to the LG/J strain [24] on a high fat diet.

            Biochemical pathways that were enriched with genes showing a diet-by-strain interaction included the plasminogen activating pathway, p53 pathway, and angiogenesis (Table 2). As a consequence of increased hepatic inflammation and hypoxia, which are associated with immune response, angiogenesis is commonly induced in order to increase blood flow and provide oxygen and nutrients to damaged areas [46, 47]. Interestingly, Liu et al. [48] found that angiogenesis in a skin wound-healing model was higher in the MRL strain, which shares 75% of its DNA identical-by-descent with LG/J, than in other strains. In our data, we found that diet affected many genes within this pathway differently and in a strain-specific fashion. Some genes, including angiopotin (Ang) and mitogen-activated protein kinase 4 (Mapk4), showed decreased expression in high-fat fed SM/J mice, Rous sarcoma oncogene (Src) and Mapk4 showed increased expression in high-fat fed LG/J mice and the remaining genes in this pathway with a diet-by-strain effect (i.e., platelet derived growth factor (Pdgfa), docking protein 2 (Dok2) and leupaxin (Lpxn)) exhibited increased expression in high-fat fed SM/J (Table 4). Still, the actual phenotypic effect that these gene expression changes have on the liver is unclear. For example, Ang and Pdgfa, along with other growth factors, have a strong pro-angiogenic effect when up-regulated [47]. In our data gene expression levels for Ang were lower in SM/J animals fed a high-fat diet, while Pdgfa expression levels significantly increased. Similarly, Lpxn encodes for the protein leupaxin, a member of the paxillin protein family, which play an important role in focal cell adhesion organization and signal transduction within the extracellular matrix [49, 50]. It also provides a platform for SRC protein binding [50, 51]. In our data set Src showed increased expression on a high-fat diet in LG/J, while Lpxn only showed increased expression in high-fat fed SM/J animals. It, therefore, appears that while high-fat diet does impact the angiogenesis pathway for both LG/J and SM/J, the genes that are impacted differ between the two. To clarify these results future studies assessing the effects of high-fat diet on angiogenesis for these strains should continue. Future studies would also be interesting considering how closely related LG/J is to MRL and MRL’s strong healing phenotype.
            Table 4

            Genes expressing significant diet-by-strain interactions within enriched biochemical pathways

            Biochemical pathways

            Genes within pathway

            Plasminogen activating cascade

            Serpinf2 (↓HFSm), Plg D (↓HFSm), Fga(↓HFSm)

            p53 pathway

            Igfbp3 D (↑HFSm), E2f1 (↑HFSm), Ccng1(↑HFSm), Tnfrsf6(↑HFSm), Cdc2a(↑HFSm)

            Angiogenesis

            Src(↑HFLg), Ang(↓HFSm), Mapk4 L (↑HFLg, ↓HFSm), Dok2 FL (↑HFSm), Lpxn MS,Ob (↑HFSm), PdgfaD(↑HFSm)

            Blood coagulation

            Serpinf2(↓HFSm), Plg D (↓HFSm), Fga(↓HFSm)

            Integrin signalling pathway

            Fn1(↑HFLg, ↓HFSm), Src(↑HFLg), Rras D (↑HFSm), Mapk4 L (↑HFLg, ↓HFSm), Arl11 FL (↑HFSm)

            Androgen/estrogene/progesterone biosynthesis

            Hsd3b4(↓HFLg), Hsd3b2(↓HFSm)

            Ornithine degradation

            Azi2(↓HFSm)

            FAS signaling pathway

            Capg(↑HFSm), Tnfrsf6(↑HFSm)

            Methylmalonyl pathway

            Mcee MS,P (↑HFSm)

            Xanthine and guanine salvage pathway

            Hprt1(↑HFSm)

            p53 pathway feedback loops 2

            E2f1(↑HFSm), Ccng1(↑HFSm)

            Arrows indicate wether expression levels were higher or lower in high-fat fed individuals verses low-fat fed individuals. HFSm=High-fat fed SM/J, HFLg=High-fat fed LG/J. Genes with superscripts are located within and near previously identified QTLs for a number of traits.

            D Diabetes QTL, L Lipid QTL, FL Fatty Liver QTL, MS Metabolic Syndrome QTL, O Obesity QTL.

            One of the most interesting aspects of this study is that QTLs associated with many metabolic syndrome domains, including obesity, diabetes, cholesterol and triglyceride levels, and fatty liver, have previously been mapped in LG/J by SM/J crosses using the same high and low-fat diets as used in this study [25, 27, 3033]. Thus, by examining how gene expression profiles differ between these strains, particularly for genes within these QTL regions, we can narrow the number of positional candidate genes influencing individual dietary response. Of the 259 gene transcripts with a significant diet by strain interaction, 57 were located within previously mapped QTLs. There was a significant enrichment of genes for obesity and serum lipid level QTLs, although, no such enrichment occurred for diabetes-related QTLs. Several metabolic syndrome components are associated with genes within and around these regions including peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (Pparg), energy homeostasis (Enho), insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 (Igfbp3), palmitoyl-protein thioesterase 1 (Ppt1), and sortilin 1 (Sort1).

            Genes associated with lipid metabolism, such as Pparg and Enho, were differentially expressed between SM/J and LG/J strains. Pparg is well known as a major factor involved in dietary obesity and diabetes [5254] and one of the major regulators of adipocyte differentiation. This gene is located within a QTL affecting both obesity- [27] and diabetes-related traits [30]. Gene expression profiles for Pparg showed that high-fat diet increased expression of this gene in both SM/J and LG/J, although this increase was significantly greater in SM/J individuals (Figure 2A). Enho produces adropin, a protein involved in glucose and lipid homeostasis [55], and is located within a QTL associated with obesity [56]. Increased levels of adropin in transgenic mice were found to be associated with improved response to diet-induced obesity, insulin resistance, and glucose tolerance [54]. In SM/J, the high-fat diet significantly reduces the expression of Enho, promoting obesity. Expression was also reduced in high-fat fed LG/J animals, but this decrease was not as severe as that observed in SM/J (Figure 2B).
            http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2164-15-99/MediaObjects/12864_2013_5901_Fig2_HTML.jpg
            Figure 2

            Least square mean intensity values for genes within or near previously identified QTLs that exhibited a diet by strain interaction. (A) Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (Pparg); (B) Energy homeostasis (Enho); (C) Sortilin (Sort1); (D) Platelet/endothelial cell adhesion molecule 1 (Pecam1). Abbrev: LF-SM: Low-fat SM/J; HF-SM: High-fat SM/J; LF-LG: Low-fat LG/J; HF-LG: High-fat LG/J. Graphs based on LS mean of raw intensity data. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

            Sortilin (Sort1) plays a significant role in the release of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol from the liver to the blood stream making it a potentially important gene for NAFLD and is located just outside the 1-LOD drop support interval of a QTL mapped for obesity [27]. Recently, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) located in an enhancer region of this gene have shown to be associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction and increased LDL cholesterol levels. In this study, we found that the overall levels of Sort1 were significantly higher in SM/J than in LG/J. However, high-fat diet significantly lowered expression of Sort1 in SM/J, while this effect was not observed for the LG/J strain (Figure 2C). Similarly, total cholesterol levels from blood serum tend to be lower in SM/J compared to LG/J, but these values respond more to diet in SM/J, with high-fat diet eliciting a significant increase [24].

            Genes that have been shown to impact NAFLD were also differentially expressed between LG/J and SM/J. Platelet/endothelial cell adhesion molecule 1 (Pecam1) is a glycoprotein located near a QTL for fatty liver [32] and diabetes [30]. Previous work has suggested that Pecam1 is involved in regulating inflammation and higher expression of this gene protects the liver from the effect of high dietary fat and NAFLD [57]. High-fat fed SM/J displayed significantly higher Pecam1 expression levels when compared to low-fat fed individuals. The effect of diet on Pecam1 expression was not significant in LG/J (Figure 2D). This may suggest that the liver in SM/J mice is under increased stress when fed a high-fat diet relative to LG/J. Overall, the expression profiles of genes in QTLs on a high fat diet, support increased obesity, serum lipid levels, and diabetes associated with the SM/J alleles.

            The only gene transcripts exhibiting a significant 3-way diet-by-sex-by-strain interaction were for the cell death-inducing DNA fragmentation factor-alpha (Cidea) gene. While this gene is not located within a previously identified QTL, mice deficient in Cidea do show increased metabolic rates and resistance to obesity when on a high-fat diet [58]. Cidea expression is strongly associated with the production of lipid droplets in white adipose tissue, with increased expression enhancing the size of the lipid droplets [59]. In addition, this increase is also associated with increased insulin sensitivity [59]. Cidea expression is typically regulated by Pparg and our data show that Cidea and Pparg show similar expression trends (Figure 3). However, the 3-way interaction of Pparg was not significant at the whole genome level. Remaining questions are why such strong differences in Cidea expression were observed between SM/J males and SM/J females and whether or not these effects are also observed in other strains. To our knowledge, there is no data within the literature addressing sex specific differences in Cidea expression in relation to diet. Most studies examining expression levels do not separate out sex effects, with few exceptions [60], and indeed, for our data set, the effect observed in SM/J males were strong enough that when SM/J males and SM/J females were pooled together a significant increase in Cidea was still observed. Thus, future studies would benefit from separating out and examining the sexes individually in order to determine if significant sex effects are likewise occurring.
            http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2164-15-99/MediaObjects/12864_2013_5901_Fig3_HTML.jpg
            Figure 3

            Comparison of Cidea and Pparg intensity values. Abbrev: LF-F: Low-fat female; LF-M: Low-fat male; HF-F: High-fat female; HF-M: High-fat male. Transformed data are used for comparison purposes. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

            Conclusions

            These data show that dietary fat intake significantly impacts gene expression levels, particularly in SM/J relative to LG/J. This is consistent with previous phenotypic data that has shown SM/J to be more responsive than LG/J to a high-fat diet for metabolic syndrome associated traits, such as obesity, diabetes and lipid serum levels [23, 24]. Many of the genes that are affected by diet are related to cellular defense, stress, and inflammation, suggesting that increased dietary fat intake promotes processes related to hepatic inflammation more so in SM/J than in LG/J. As the prevalence of NAFLD and its association with obesity and increased risk for metabolic syndrome steadily increases among Western societies, it is becoming vital that we understand the factors that contribute to individual variability in and susceptibility to this disease. Previous work has shown that genetic differences between SM/J and LG/J contribute to the amount of fat that accumulates within the liver on a high-fat diet [32] and QTLs for this trait have been mapped in recombinant inbred strains produced from these two parent strains. In accordance with this and our findings that gene expression profiles in response to high-fat diet produces a strong inflammatory response within the liver, particularly for SM/J, we suggest that SM/J and its cross with the unresponsive LG/J strain are a good model for examining non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and its role in the metabolic syndrome.

            Methods

            In order to assess the effects of dietary intake on gene expression in SM/J and LG/J mice, males and females from each strain were placed on either a low-fat diet (15%, Research Diets #D12284) or high-fat (42%, Harlan-Teklad #TD88137) diet immediately after weaning (3weeks) until 20 weeks of age (Table 5). Previous work has shown that SM/J mice consume more calories per gram of body mass than LG/J; however, there is no difference in the amount of energy consumed per body mass between individuals fed a high-fat versus a low-fat diet for either strain [24]. At 20 weeks, mice were sacrificed in late morning after a four-hour fast and tissue was collected from 4 males and 4 females from each strain and diet. The liver tissue was immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80°C until extraction. All animal procedures were approved by the Washington University in St. Louis Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).
            Table 5

            Components of high-fat and low-fat diets

             

            High fat diet

            Low fat diet

            Energy from fat (%)

            42

            15

            Casein (g/kg)

            195

            197

            Sugars (g/kg)

            341

            307

            Corn starch (g/kg)

            150

            313

            Cellulose (g/kg)

            50

            50

            Corn oil (g/kg)

            0

            58

            Hydrogenated coconut oil (g/kg)

            0

            7

            Anhydrous milk fat (g/kg)

            210

            0

            Cholesterol (g/kg)

            1.5

            0

            Kilojoules per gram

            18.95

            16.99

            Total RNA was extracted using RNeasy® 96 Universal Tissue extraction kits (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) and quantified using a Nanodrop™ 2000 (Thermo Scientific, Wilmington, DE). RNA samples were submitted to the Washington University Microarray Core Facility, where quality was assessed using a 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent Tecnologies, Palo Alto, CA). RNA was reverse transcribed and amplified using an Illumina TotalPrep amplification kit (Ambion, Austin, TX) and then hybridized onto Illumina® WG-6 v.2 BeadChips (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Arrays were scanned using the Illumina Beadstation 500. Images were processed using Illumina BeadScan software and intensity values were analyzed using Illumina BeadStudio.

            Illumina raw data from 45,281 unique probes were read into R statistical software using the Lumi package [61]. Data were transformed using a variance stabilization transformation [62], which takes into account the large number of technical replicates on Illumina arrays, and normalized using a robust spline normalization. Genes that showed no significant expression were filtered from the data set prior to analysis, leaving 26,209 transcripts analyzed for the liver. The data was then read into Partek Genomics software v. 6.5 (Partek Incorporated, St. Louis, MO) for further statistical analysis. An ANOVA was used to examine the impact of diet, strain, sex, and their interactions (diet x strain, diet x sex, sex x strain, and diet x sex x strain) on differential gene expression. A genome-wide false discovery rate threshold of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.

            K-means and hierarchical clustering analysis were performed in Partek (Partek Incorporated, St. Louis, MO) on genes that showed significant diet-by-strain interactions (FDR<0.05). K-means clustering was preformed using a Euclidian distance function with 1,000 iterations utilizing different values of K. The number of clusters with the lowest David-Bouldin value was identified as the most likely value of K. Hierarchical clustering was performed on group mean data using a Euclidian distance function and average linkage method.

            The Gene Ontology (GO) database PANTHER (http://​pantherdb.​org) was used to determine biological processes and biochemical pathways that were enriched with differentially expressed genes. Pathways and processes with p values<0.05 were considered to be significant.

            In order to determine if previously identified QTLs for diabetes, serum lipid levels, and obesity were significantly enriched with genes exhibiting a significant diet-by-strain interaction, a chi-square test was used to determine if the number of these genes located within QTLs significantly differed from what would be expected by chance. Probability values of <0.05 were used to determine significance.

            Availability of supporting data

            The data set supporting the results of this article are available in the ArrayExpress database (http://​www.​ebi.​ac.​uk/​arrayexpress) under the accession number #E-MTAB-2172.

            Abbreviations

            NAFLD: 

            Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

            QTL: 

            Quantitative trait loci.

            Declarations

            Acknowledgements

            This project was funded by grants obtained through the National Institute of Health RR015116 and DK-055736 (J M Cheverud). We would also like to thank Heather Lawson for assisting with statistical analysis.

            Authors’ Affiliations

            (1)
            Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Washington University in St. Louis
            (2)
            Human Genome Sequencing Center, Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine
            (3)
            Departments of Medicine and Cell Biology & Physiology, Washington University in St. Louis
            (4)
            Department of Biology, University of Western Ontario
            (5)
            Department of Biology, University of Loyola Chicago

            References

            1. Heymsfield SB: How large is the energy gap that accounts for the obesity epidemic? Am J Clin Nutri 2009, 89:1717–1718.View Article
            2. Stunkard AJ, Foch TT, Hrubec Z: A twin study of human obesity. JAMA 1986, 256:51–54.PubMedView Article
            3. Stunkard AJ, Sørensen TIA, Hanis C, Teasdale TW, Chakraborty R, Schull WJ, Schulsinger F: An adoption study of human obesity. N Engl J Med 1986, 314:193–198.PubMedView Article
            4. Cornier MA, Dabelea D, Hernandez TL, Lindstrom RC, Steig AJ, Stob NR, Van Pelt RE, Wang H, Eckel RH: The metabolic syndrome. Endocr Rev 2008, 29:777–822.PubMedView Article
            5. Musani SK, Erickson S, Allison DB: Obesity—still highly heritable after all these years. Am J Clin Nutr 2008, 87:275–276.PubMed
            6. Deng QG, She H, Cheng JH, French SW, Koop D, Xiong S, Tsukamoto H: Steatohepatitis induced by intragastric overfeeding in mice. Hepatology 2005, 42:905–914.PubMedView Article
            7. Sathiaraj E, Chutke M, Reddy MY, Pratap N, Rao PN, Reddy DN, Raghunath M: A case–control study on nutritional risk factors in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in Indian population. Eur J Clin Nutr 2011, 65:533–537.PubMedView Article
            8. Zou Y, Li J, Lu C, Wang J, Ge J, Huang Y, Zhang L, Wang Y: High-fat emulsion-induced rat model of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Life Sci 2006, 79:1100–1107.PubMedView Article
            9. Luyckx FH, Desalve C, Thiry A, Scheen AJ, Gielen JE, Lefbvre PJ: Liver abnormalities in severely obese subjects: effect of drastic weight loss after gastroplasty. Int J Obesity 1998, 22:222–226.View Article
            10. Marchesini G, Brizi M, Morselli-Labate AM, Bianchi G, McCullough AJ, Foriani G, Melchionda N: Association of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease with insulin resistance. Am J Med 1999, 107:45–455.View Article
            11. Seppala-Lindroos A, Vehkavaara S, Hakkinen AM, Goto T, Westerbacka J, Sovijarvi A, Halavaara J, Yki-Jarvien H: Fat accumulation in the liver is associated with defects in insulin suppression of glucose production and serum free fatty acids independent of obesity in normal men. J Clin Endocr Metab 2002, 87:3023–3028.PubMedView Article
            12. Venturi C, Zoppini G, Zamboni C, Muggeo M: Insulin sensitivity and hepatic steatosis in obese subjects with normal glucose tolerance. Nutr Metab Cardiovas 2004, 14:200–204.View Article
            13. Bozzetto L, Prinster A, Mancini M, Giacco R, De Natale C, Salvatore M, Riccardi , Rivellese AA, Annuzzi G: Liver fat in obesity: role of type 2 diabetes mellitus and adipose tissue distribution. Eur J of Clin Invest 2011, 41:39–44.View Article
            14. Silverman JF, Obrien KF, Long S, Leggett N, Khazanie PG, Pories WJ, Norris HT, Caro JF: Liver pathology in morbidly obese patients with and without diabetes. Am J Gastroenterol 1990, 85:1349–1355.PubMed
            15. Browning JD, Szczepaniak LS, Dobbins R, Nuremberg P, Horton JD, Cohen JC, Grundy SM, Hobbs HH: Prevalence of hepatic steatosis in an urban population in the United States: impact of ethnicity. Hepatology 2004, 40:1387–1395.PubMedView Article
            16. Browning JD, Kumar KS, Saboorian H, Thiele DL: Ethnic differences in the prevalence of cryptogenic cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol 2004, 135:282–291.
            17. Schwimmer JB, Celedon MA, Lavine JE, Salem R, Campbell N, Schork N, Shiehmorteza M, Yokoo T, Chavez A, Middleton M, Sirlin C: Heritability of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology 2009, 136:1585–1592.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            18. Struben VM, Hespenheide EE, Caldwell SH: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and cryptogenic cirrhosis within kindreds. Am J Med 2000, 108:9–13.PubMedView Article
            19. Willner IR, Waters B, Patil SR, Reuben A, Morelli J, Riley CA: Ninety patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: insulin resistance, familial tendency and severity of disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2001, 96:2957–29561.PubMedView Article
            20. Kim Y, Park T: DNA microarrays to define and search for genes associated with obesity. Biotechnol J 2010, 5:99–112.PubMedView Article
            21. Shockley KR, Witmer DW, Bergess-Herbert SL, Paigen B, Churchill G: Effects of anthrogenic diet on hepatic gene expression across mouse strains. Physiol Genomics 2009, 39:172–182.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            22. Warden CH, Fisler JS: Comparisons of diets used in animal models of high-fat feeding. Cell Metab 2008, 7:277.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            23. Cheverud JM, Pletscher LS, Vaughn TT, Marshall B: Differential response to dietary fat in large (LG/J) and small (SM/J) inbred mouse strains. Physiol Genomics 1999, 1:33–39.PubMed
            24. Ehrich T, Kenney J, Vaughn TT, Pletscher LS, Cheverud JM: Diet, obesity and hyperglycemia in LG/J and SM/J mice. Obes Res 2003, 11:1400–1410.PubMedView Article
            25. Cheverud JM, Ehrich TH, Hrbek T, Kenney JP, Pletscher LS, Semenkovich CF: Quantitative trait loci for obesity- and diabetes-related traits and their dietary responses to high-fat feeding in LGXSM recombinant inbred mouse strains. Diabetes 2004, 53:3328–3336.PubMedView Article
            26. Cheverud JM, Vaughn TT, Pletscher S, Peripato A, Adams ES, Erikson CF, King-Ellison KJ: Genetic architecture of adiposity in the cross of LG/J and SM/J inbred mice. Mamm Genome 2001, 12:3–12.PubMedView Article
            27. Cheverud JM, Lawson HA, Faucett GL, Wang B, Pletscher LS, Fox AR, Maxwell TJ, Ehrich TH, Kenney-Hunt JP, Wolf JB, Semenkovich CF: Diet-dependent genetic and genomic imprinting effects on obesity in mice. Obesity 2011, 19:160–170.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            28. Fawcett GL, Roseman CC, Jarvis JP, Wang B, Wolf JB, Cheverud JM: Genetic architecture of adiposity and organ weight using combined generation QTL analysis. Obesity 2008, 16:1861–1868.PubMedView Article
            29. Fawcett GL, Jarvis JP, Roseman CC, Wang B, Wolf JB, Cheverud JM: Fine-mapping of Obesity-related quantitative trait loci in an F-9/10 advanced intercross line. Obesity 2010, 18:1383–1392.PubMedView Article
            30. Lawson HA, Lee A, Fawcett GL, Wang B, Pletscher LS, Maxwell TJ, Ehrich TH, Kenney-Hunt JP, Wolf JB, Semenkovich CF, Cheverud JM: The importance of context to the genetic architecture of diabetes-related traits is revealed in a genome-wide scan of LG/J x SM/J murine model. Mamm Genome 2011, 22:197–208.PubMedView Article
            31. Lawson HA, Zelle KM, Fawcett GL, Wang B, Pletscher LS, Maxwell TJ, Ehrich TH, Kenney-Hunt JP, Wolf JB, Semenkovich CF, Cheverud JM: Genetic, epigenetic, and gene-by-diet interaction effect underlie variation in serum lipids in a Lg/J x Sm/J murine model. J Lipid Res 2010, 51:2976–2984.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            32. Minkina O, Cheverud JM, Fawcett G, Semenkovich C, Kenney-Hunt JP: Quantitative trait loci affecting liver fat content in mice. Genes, Genomics, Genetics 2012, 2:1019–1025.
            33. Lawson HA, Cady JE, Partridge C, Wolf JB, Semenkovich CF, Cheverud JM: Context-dependency of genetic effects at pleiotrophic loci associated with metabolic syndrome components: evolutionary and biomedical implications. PLOS Genetics 2011, 7:e1002256.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            34. Carmiel-Haggai M, Cederbaum A, Nieto N: A high-fat diet leads to the progression of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in obese rats. FASEB J 2005, 19:136–138.PubMed
            35. Day CP: Genes or environment to determine alcohol liver disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Liver Int 2006, 26:1021–1028.PubMedView Article
            36. Matsunami T, Sato Y, Ariga S, Sato T, Kashimura H, Hasegawa Y, Yukawa M: Regulation of oxidative stress and inflammation by hepatic adiponectin receptor 2 in an animal model of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2010, 3:472–481.PubMed CentralPubMed
            37. Monteiro R, Azevedo I: Chronic inflammation in obesity and the metabolic syndrome. Mediators Inflamm 2010, 2010:289645.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            38. Parola M, Marra F: Adipokines and redox signaling. Impact on fatty liver disease. Antiox Redox Sign 2011, 15:461–483.View Article
            39. Wellen KE, Hotamisligil GS: Inflammation, stress, and diabetes. J Clin Invest 2005, 115:1111–1119.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            40. Caspar-Bauguil S, Cousin B, Galinier A, Segafredo C, Nibbelink M, André , Casteilla L, Pénicaud : Adipose tissue as an ancestral immune organ: site specific change in obesity. FEBS Lett 2005, 579:3487–3492.PubMedView Article
            41. Li H, Lelliott C, Håkansson P, Ploj K, Tneld A, Verolin-Johansson M, Benthem , Carlsson B, Storlien L, Michaëlsson E: Intestinal, adipose, and liver inflammation in diet-induced obese mice. Metabolism 2008, 54:1704–1710.View Article
            42. Radonjic M, de Haan JR, van Erk MJ, van Dijk KW, van den Berg SAA, de Groot PJ, Müller M, van Ommen : Genome-wide mRNA expression analysis of hepatic adaptation to high-fat diets reveals switch from an inflammatory to steatotic transcriptional program. PLoS One 2009, 4:e6646.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            43. Kurtz J, Wegner M, Kalbe M, Reusch TB, Schaschl H, Hasselquist D, Milinski M: MHC genes and oxidative stress in sticklebacks: an immuno-ecological approach. Proc R Soc B 2006, 273:1407–141.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            44. Tezel G, Yang X, Luo C, Peng Y, Sun S, Sun D: Oxidative stress-stimulated antigen presentation by the retina and optic nerve head glia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007, 48:705–714.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            45. Vergnes L, Phan J, Strauss M, Tafuri S, Reue K: Cholesterol and cholate components of an antherogenic diet induce distinct stages of hepatic inflammatory gene expression. J Biol Chem 2003, 278:42774–42784. 44PubMedView Article
            46. Chaparro M, Sanz-Cameno P, Trapero-Marugán M, García-Bucy L, Moreno-Otero R: Mechanisms of angiogenesis in chronic inflammatory liver disease. Ann Hepatol 2007, 6:208–213.PubMed
            47. Fernández M, Semela D, Bruix J, Colle I, Pinzani M, Bosch J: Angiogenesis in liver disease. J Hepatol 2009, 50:604–620.PubMedView Article
            48. Liu F, Smith J, Zhang Z, Cole R, Herron BJ: Genetic heterogeneity of skin microvasculature. Dev Biol 2010, 340:480–489.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            49. Schaller M, Parsons J: Focal adhesion kinase and associated proteins. Curr Opin Cell Biol 1994, 6:705–710.PubMedView Article
            50. Turner CE: Paxillin: a cytoskeletal target for tyrosine kinases. Bioassays 1994, 16:47–52.View Article
            51. Turner CE: Paxillin interactions. J Cell Sci 2000, 113:4139–4140.PubMed
            52. Kliewer SA, Xu HE, Lambert MH, Willson TM: Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors: from genes to physiology. Recent Prog Horm Res 2001, 56:239–263.PubMedView Article
            53. Moller DE, Berger JP: Role of PPARs in the regulation of obesity-related insulin sensitivity and inflammation. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2003, 27:S17-S21.PubMedView Article
            54. Vidal-Puig A, Jimenez-Liñan M, Lowell B, Hamann A, Hu E, Spiegelman B, Flier J, Moller D: Regulation of PPARγ gene expression by nutrition and obesity in rodents. J Clin Invest 1996, 97:2553–2561.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            55. Kumar KG, Trevaskis JL, Lam DD, Sutton GM, Koza RA, Chouljenko VN, Kousoulas KG, Rogers PM, Kesterson RA, Thearle M, Ferrante AW Jr, Mynatt RL, Burris TP, Dong JZ, Halem HA, Culler MD, Heisler LK, Stephens JM, Butler AA: Identification of adropin as a secreted factor linking dietary macronutrient intake with energy homeostasis and lipid metabolism. Cell Metab 2008, 8:468–481.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            56. Lyly A, Marjavaara SK, Kyttälä A, Uusi-Rauva K, Luiro K, Kopra O, Martinez LO, Tanhuanpää K, Kalkkinen N, Suomalainen A, Jauhiainen M, Jalanko A: Deficiency of the INCL protein Ppt1 results in changes in ectopic F1-ATP synthase and altered cholesterol metabolism. Hum Mol Genet 2008, 17:1406–1417.PubMedView Article
            57. Goel R, Boylan B, Gruman L, Newman PJ, North PE, Newman DK: The proinflammatory phenotype of PECAM-1 deficient mice results in atherogenic diet-inducted steatohepatitis. Am M Physiol-Gastr L 2007, 293:G1205-G1214.
            58. Zhou Z, Yon Toh S, Chen Z, Guo K, Ng CP, Ponniah S, Lin SC, Hong W, Li P: Cidea-deficient mice have lean phenotype and are resistant to obesity. Nat Genet 2003, 35:49–56.PubMedView Article
            59. Puri V, Ranjit S, Konda S, Nicoloro SMC, Straubhaar J, Chawia A, Chouinard M, Lin C, Burkart A, Corvera S, Perugini RA, Czech MP: Cidea is associated with lipid droplets and insulin sensitivity in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008, 105:7833–7836.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            60. Gatti DM, Zhao N, Chesler EJ, Bradford BU, Shabalin AA, Yordanova R, Lu L, Rusyn I: Sex-specific gene expression in the BXD mouse liver. Physiol Genomics 2010, 42:456–468.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article
            61. Du P, Kibbe WA, Lin SM: Lumi: a pipeline for processing Illumina microarray. Bioinformatics 2008, 24:1547–1548.PubMedView Article
            62. Lin SM, Du P, Huber W, Kibbe WA: Model-based variance-stabilizing transformation for Illumina microarray data. Nucleic Acids Res 2008, 36:e11.PubMed CentralPubMedView Article

            Copyright

            © Partridge et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

            This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

            Advertisement