Amelioration of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease by targeting G protein-coupled receptor 110: A preclinical study

2.1. Animals

All animal procedures were approved by the Animal Subjects Ethics Sub-Committee of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and were conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Centralized Animals Facilities. In general, eight-week-old C57BL/6J male mice were housed in pathogen-free conditions at controlled temperature with a 12-hour light-dark cycle and access to food and water ad libitum. The eight-week-old male mice were divided into two groups and fed with either standard chow diet (STC, 18.3% protein, 10.2% fat, 71.5% carbohydrates, Research Diet Inc., New Brunswick, NJ, USA) or high-fat diet (HFD, 20% protein, 45% fat, 35% carbohydrates, Research Diets Inc., New Brunswick, NJ, USA) for 8 weeks. The sample size was calculated based on previous findings, suggesting that group sizes of n=7-8 would be sufficient [24].

The recombinant adeno-associated virus vector rAAV2/8 transduction was conducted as described previously [25, 26]. Briefly, mice were tail vein injected with 3×10¹¹ rAAV2/8 vector harboring either green fluorescent protein (GFP) or GPR110. For antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) delivery, validated ASOs against mouse GPR110 were provided by Ionis Pharmaceuticals and injected subcutaneously once a week at 5 mg/kg body weight to the mice. For SCD1 inhibitor delivery, MK-8245 (MedChemExpress, NJ, USA) was gavaged at 10 mg/kg BW once a week [27]. All measurements were carried out in a randomized order.

2.2. Primary hepatocyte isolation and adenovirus infection

Primary hepatocytes from different groups of mice were isolated using a two-step perfusion method as previously described [28, 29]. Briefly, type II collagenase was perfused to mice at a flow rate of 10 ml/min. Liver was collected and mesh in serum-free DMEM and hepatocytes were pelleted by centrifugation. For the supernatant containing nonparenchymal cells (NPCs), gradient solutions of Percoll were used for extraction. For adenovirus viral infection experiments, serum-starved cells were infected with adenoviruses carrying mouse GPR110 cDNA to overexpress GPR110. Similar adenoviral vectors encoding the green fluorescent protein (GFP) gene were used as controls.

2.3. Cell culture and Luciferase Reporter Assay

HEK293 cells were cultured in DMEM supplemented with 10% FBS, 100 U/ml penicillin and 100 μg/ml streptomycin at 37 °C and 5% CO2. HEK293 cells were seeded in 6-well plates and were transfected with pGL3-SCD1 promoter and adenoviral vector expressing either GPR110 (ADV-GPR110) or GFP (ADV-GFP) by using the transfection reagent (#E4981, Promega, WI, USA), following the manufacturer’s instruction. DHEA (C3270, APExBIO, TX, USA) was added into cells at the concentration of 100 μM and incubated at 37 °C for 24h. For the luciferase reporter assay, pRL-TK (Renilla luciferase) reporter plasmid was used as a transfection control. The luciferase assays were performed by using the Dual-Luciferase Reporter Assay System (#E1960, Promega, WI, USA).

2.4. Biochemical analysis

For glucose profile measurement, the blood glucose and insulin level were measured by collecting the blood samples from the tip of the tail using Accu-Chek® glucometer (Roche Diagnostics, Indiana, USA) as described [30]. For the glucose tolerance test (GTT), insulin tolerance test (ITT) and pyruvate tolerance test (PTT), mice were fasted overnight prior to intraperitoneal injection of glucose (1 g/kg body weight (BW) (Sigma, St. Louis, MO), 0.75 U/kg BW insulin (Novolin R, Novo Nordisk, Bagsvaerd, Denmark) or 1 g/kg BW pyruvate (Sigma, St. Louis, MO). Blood glucose levels were measured from the tip of tail vein at 15, 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes after injection. For plasma and hepatic lipid level, serum levels of triglyceride (TG) and total cholesterol (CHO) were measured using commercial kit (Biosino, biotechnology and science INC, China) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Hepatic lipids were extracted using Folch methodology and liver extract was dissolved in ethanol for TG and CHO measurement. Both serum and hepatic levels of free fatty acid (FFA) were measured using commercial kit (Solarbio, China) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For liver function assay, the alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels were measured in serum using commercial kits (Stanbio, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

2.5. Histopathologic and Western blot analysis

Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and Oil Red O (ORO) staining were performed on paraffin-embedded and frozen liver sections, respectively. Detailed procedures of H&E and ORO were described previously [31, 32]. Representative histopathological images were acquired with a light microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Western blot analysis was performed as previously described [25, 26, 28, 29]. Briefly, total protein was extracted from tissues and cultured cells with RIPA lysis buffer (65 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 1 mM EDTA, 1% NP-40, 0.5% sodium deoxycholate and 0.1% SDS). Protein samples were then separated by gel electrophoresis and then transferred to PVDF membranes (IPVH00010, Merck Millipore, CA, USA). The expression of protein was detected by a ChemiDoc MP Imaging System (bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). Primary antibodies used were shown in Table S1.

2.6. Quantitative real time PCR analysis

Total RNA was extracted with RNAiso Plus (#9109, TakaRa Bio Inc., Shiga, Japan) as previously described. RNA was reverse transcribed into cDNA with PrimeScript^TM RT reagent Kit (#RR037, TakaRa Bio Inc., Shiga, Japan). cDNA was then amplified with TB green Premix Ex Taq^TM II (Til Rnase H Plus) (##RR820A, TakaRa Bio Inc., Shiga, Japan). The real-time PCR was conducted with a LightCycler 96 qPCR System (Roche, Basel, Switzerland). The relative quantity of the targeted RNA was calculated through normalization to the quantity of the corresponding GAPDH mRNA level. Detailed primer sequences were listed below in Table S2.

2.7. Microarray and RNA sequencing

The liver of mice fed with either STC (n=6) or HFD (n=6) for 8 weeks were sent to Kompetenzzentrum Fluoreszente Bioanalytik (Germany) for gene expression analysis using Affymetrix Mouse Exon 1.0 ST Array. RNA was extracted from the liver of mice treated with rAAV-GPR110 and ASO-GPR110 using RNeasy Kits (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) according to the instructions. RNA concentration was quantified using NanoDrop™ 2000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, USA) and RNA quality was assessed using Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent, Santa Clara, USA). 10 μg of total RNA from liver with RNA integrity number (RIN) greater than 7 was used in RNA-seq. RNA- seq was performed by BGI and analyzed by Dr. Tom system (BGI, Shenzhen, China). A heat map was created based on log2 transformed counts from different samples. To be included in the heat map, genes were required to have at least 1000 counts, totaled over all samples, where and the standard deviation of the log2 had to exceed two.

2.8. Human samples

Liver biopsy specimens were collected from 9 biopsy-proven NAFLD patients [33]. Liver sections with H&E staining were subjected to histological evaluation of steatosis. Simple steatosis was defined by the presence of macrovascular steatosis affecting at least 5% of hepatocytes without inflammatory foci and evidence of hepatocellular injury in the form of hepatocyte ballooning [34]. Individuals with a heavy alcohol-drinking history (≥40 g/day for up to 2 weeks), drug-induced liver disease and hepatitis virus infection were excluded from the study. Clinical parameters of individuals were summarized in Table S1. The human study is approved by the Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China (Number: 2019-KY-097-01). Written informed consent was obtained from participants prior to their inclusion in the study.

2.9. Statistical analysis

All experiments were performed at least twice, and each experimental group included n ≥ 7 mice. Representative data were presented as mean ± standard error of mean (SEM). All statistical analysis was performed with the Graphpad Prism software (version 9.0, CA, USA). Statistical differences among two groups were performed using the unpaired Student t test or Mann-Whitney tests for the comparison of variables with or without normal distribution, respectively. The correlation between the two groups was assessed by non-parametric Spearman’s test. For multiple comparisons between three or more groups, one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction was conducted. In all statistical comparisons, p values <0.05 were accepted as significant.

3.1. GPR110 mainly expresses in liver of mice and its expression is downregulated after HFD treatment

Firstly, we used microarray analysis to examine the change in expression levels of hepatic GPCRs in mice after HFD treatment (Table S3). In this screening, we found that GPR110 is mainly expressed in liver and its expression is dramatically decreased in the HFD-fed mice as compared to their STC-fed littermates. Remarkably, in agreement with previous studies [20, 35], GPR110 is mainly expressed in the liver of adult mice (Figure 1A-B). We also checked the GPR110 protein expression in those tissues by Western blot analysis. GRP110 proteins were mainly detected in liver and kidney samples (Figure 1B). Next, we used cell fractionation to identify the GPR110 expressing cells in liver (Figure 1C). The CD11b mRNAs were used as markers for non-parenchymal cells (NPC), and albumin mRNA for hepatocytes. Our cell fractionation clearly demonstrated that GPR110 mRNA is mainly expressed in hepatocytes (Figure 1C). This finding was further supported by Western blot analysis (Figure 1D). Remarkably, after HFD treatment for 8 weeks, the expression level of hepatic GPR110 declined to almost undetectable level as examined by qPCR analysis (Figure 1E). In contrast, the mRNA levels of two NAFLD related markers, FGF21 and F4/80 (also known as ADGRE1) were highly induced in the livers of HFD fed mice [36, 37]. Western blot analysis was performed to confirm the declined expression of GPR110 is also observed in protein level in the livers of HFD-fed mice (Figure 1F, upper panel). Interestingly, HFD-treatment did not affect the renal GRP110 expression (Figure 1F, lower panel). Collectively, the hepatic, but not renal, GPR110 level is tightly regulated by nutritional status.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: GPR110 is mainly expressed in the liver and its expression is downregulated after HFD treatment.

Eight-week-old male C57BL/6J mice were fed with either STC or HFD for 8 weeks. (A) mRNA expression levels of GPR110 in different organs as determined by qPCR analysis (n = 5). (B) Representative immunoblotting analyses of GPR110 expression in different tissues of C57BL/J mice after STC for 8 weeks (n = 3). (C) mRNA expression levels of GPR110, CD11b and albumin in factions of hepatocyte or NPC isolated from STC-fed mice livers as determined by qPCR. (D) Left panel: representative immunoblotting analyses of GPR110, CD11b and albumin in fractions of hepatocytes or NPC isolated from mice livers fed with STC, each lane is a sample from different individual; right panel: quantification of protein expression levels of GPR110, CD11b and albumin. Protein expression levels were normalized to the expression of β-actin. The fraction of Hepatocytes was set as 1 for fold-change calculation. (E) mRNA expression levels of GPR110, FGF21 and F4/80 (served as HFD marker) in mice livers fed with either STC or HFD for 8 weeks as determined by qPCR. (F) Left panel: representative immunoblotting analyses of GPR110 in mice fed with either STC or HFD for 8 weeks; right panel: quantification of protein expression levels of GPR110. Protein expression levels were normalized to the expression of β-tubulin. The sample from STC mice were set as 1 for fold-change calculation. Each lane is a sample from different individual. GPR110, G-protein coupled receptor 110; STC, standard chow diet; HFD, high-fat diet; NPC, non-parenchymal cell. Data represents as mean ± SEM; n = 8 per group; repeated with three independent experiments; P value analyzed by two-tailed Student’s t test. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

3.2. Overexpression of GPR110 in hepatocytes accelerates metabolic dysregulation caused by HFD

Based on the dramatic difference in expression levels of hepatic GPR110 before and after HFD treatment, we hypothesized that downregulation of GPR110 in HFD-fed mice may be involved in the pathogenesis of fatty liver. To evaluate the impacts of high hepatic GPR110 level on liver metabolism, GPR110 was overexpressed in the hepatocytes of HFD-fed mice by liver-directed rAAV/ApoE- mediated gene expression system (Figure 2A and S1A). The overexpression of GPR110 in the livers of the mice were validated by qPCR (Figure 2B and S1B) and Western blot analysis (Figure S1C). We also confirmed that rAAV-mediated GPR110 overexpression was solely in hepatocytes, but not in NPC, by Western blot analysis after cell fractionation (Figure 2C). Renal GPR110 expression level was not affected by liver-directed rAAV/ApoE-mediated gene expression (Figure S1C).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Supplementary Figure 1:

Related to Fig. 2. Hepatic overexpression of GPR110 in STC-fed mice exhibits mild metabolic abnormalities. Eight-week-old male C57BL/6J mice were infected with 3×10¹¹ copies of AAV encoding GPR110 (rAAV-GPR110, i.v.) or control (rAAV-GFP, i.v.) and fed with STC diet. (A) Schematic illustration of viral treatments. (B) Hepatic mRNA expression levels of GPR110 from STC- fed mice with liver-specific GPR110 overexpression as determined by qPCR analysis. (C) Left panel: immunoblotting analysis of hepatic protein expression level of GPR110 from STC-fed mice liver with GPR110 overexpression. Right panel: quantification of hepatic protein expression levels of GPR110. Each lane is a sample from a different individual; n = 3 per group. (D) Change of body weight and (E) fasting blood glucose at different weeks upon rAAV injection were measured. (F) Fasting blood insulin level and (G) HOMA-IR values were measured and calculated at the end of the experiment. (H) GTT (1 g/kg BW, left) and area under curve (AUC, right) of serum glucose at the week of 10. (I) PTT (1 g/kg BW, left) and AUC (right) of serum glucose at week 11. (J) ITT (0.5 U/kg BW, left) and AUC (right) of serum glucose at week 12. mRNA expression levels of the target genes were normalized to the expression of mouse GAPDH. STC, standard chow diet; BW, body weight; i.v., intravenous injection; GTT, glucose tolerance test; PTT, pyruvate tolerance test; ITT, insulin tolerance test; AUC, area under curve; NC, negative control; HOMA-IR, homeostasis model assessment-estimated insulin resistance. Data represents as mean ± SEM; n = 8 mice per group; repeated with three independent experiments; P value analyzed by two-tailed Student’s t test. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Overexpression of GPR110 in hepatocytes exaggerates metabolic dysregulation by HFD treatment.

Eight-week-old male C57BL/6J mice were infected with 3×10¹¹ copies of rAAV encoding GPR110 (rAAV-GPR110, i.v.) or control (rAAV-GFP, i.v.) and received HFD feeding, respectively. (A) Schematic illustration of viral treatments. (B) Hepatic mRNA expression levels of GPR110 from rAAV- GPR110 mice liver in fractions of hepatocyte or NPC isolated from HFD-fed mice livers as determined by qPCR. (C) Immunoblotting analyses of GPR110, CD11b and albumin from rAAV-GPR110 mice liver in factions of hepatocyte or NPC isolated from HFD-fed mice livers. Each lane is a sample from a different individual. n = 3 per group. (D) Body weight, (E) the percentage of fat mass and (F) lean mass were assessed in different groups. (G) Fasting blood glucose level were measured biweekly upon rAAV injection. (H) The fasting serum insulin level and (I) HOMA-IR index were measured and calculated according to the formula [Fasting blood glucose (mmol/l) × Fasting blood insulin (mIU/l)]/22.5 for the HFD-fed rAAV-GPR110 or rAAV-GFP mice at the end of the experiment (J) GTT (1 g/kg BW, left) and area under curve (AUC, right) of serum glucose at week 10. (K) PTT (1 g/kg BW, left) and AUC (right) of serum glucose at week 11. (L) ITT (0.5 U/kg BW, left) and AUC (right) of serum glucose at week 12. mRNA expression levels of the target genes were normalized to the expression of mouse GAPDH. rAAV-NC group was set as 1 for fold-change calculation. GPR110, G-protein coupled receptor 110; STC, standard chow diet; HFD, high-fat diet; NPC, non-parenchymal cell; BW, body weight; GTT, glucose tolerance test; PTT, pyruvate tolerance test; ITT, insulin tolerance test; AUC, area under curve; NC, negative control; HOMA-IR, homeostasis model assessment-estimated insulin resistance. Data represents as mean ± SEM; n = 8 mice per group; repeated with three independent experiments; P value analyzed by two-tailed Student’s t test. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

Overexpressing GPR110 in the liver of STC-fed mice did not affect body weight (Figure S1D), fasting glucose level (Figure S1E), fasting insulin level (Figure S1F) and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR; Figure S1G). There was only a slight increase at several time points in the glucose excursion curve in response to the GTT (Figure S1H) and hepatic glucose production induced by sodium pyruvate in PTT (Figure S1I). No change in insulin sensitivity was observed by insulin tolerance test between STC-fed rAAV-GFP and rAAV-GPR110 mice (Figure S1J).

However, under HFD treatment, rAAV-GPR110 mice gained more body weight (Figure 2D), and body fat mass (Figure 2E-F) than their rAAV-GFP controls. The HFD-fed rAAV-GPR110 mice also had higher fasting glucose level (Figure 2G), fasting insulin level (Figure 2H) and HOMA-IR (Figure 2I). Worsen glucose tolerance was observed in HFD-fed rAAV-GPR110 mice (Figure 2J). Overexpression of GPR110 in livers significantly increased hepatic glucose production induced in PTT (Figure 2K). ITT showed that the glucose levels in HFD-fed rAAV-GPR110 mice remained insensitive at 30 to 60 minutes after injection of insulin as compared to their control HFD-fed rAAV-GFP littermates (Figure 2L). In summary, we observed a mild impairment in glucose homeostasis associated with overexpressing GPR110 in the livers of STC-fed mice and more dramatical impairment was observed when the rAAV-GPR110 mice was challenged with HFD as compared to their rAAV-GFP controls.

3.3. Suppressing GPR110 improves glucose homeostasis in HFD-fed rAAV-GPR110 mice To confirm that the observations above were due to the rAAV-mediated overexpression of hepatic GPR110 in HFD-fed mice, we used two N-acetylgalactaosamine (GalNAc) conjugated antisense oligonucleotides (ASO-GPR110s) that bind to different regions of GPR110 mRNAs to knockdown the hepatic GPR110 expression in mice (Figure 3A and S2A). To avoid the observation is due to off-target effects, two different sequences of ASO were used. Chronic treatment of either ASO-GPR110s only lowered the hepatic, but not renal, GPR110 mRNA (Figure 3B and S2B) and protein (Figure S2C) levels. It is due to the fact that liver hepatocytes abundantly and specifically express the asialoglycoprotein receptor that binds and uptakes circulating glycosylated oligonucleotides via receptor-mediated endocytosis [38]. Knockdown hepatic GPR110 by ASO-GPR110s in STC-fed mice did not affect body weight (Figure S2D) and fasting glucose (Figure S2E), but slightly lowered insulin level (Figure S2F) and HOMR-IR (Figure S2G) as compared to their littermates injected with the negative control – scrambled antisense oligonucleotides (ASO-NC). No difference in the changes of glucose levels in GTT (Figure S2H), PTT (Figure S2I) and ITT (Figure S2J) for both ASO-GPR110s and ASO-NC groups under STC feeding conditions.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Supplementary Figure 2:

Related to Figure 3. Hepatic knockdown of GPR110 in STC-fed mice does not exhibit metabolic abnormalities. Eight-week-old male C57BL/6J mice were infected with two different sequences of GPR110 antisense oligonucleotides (ASO1-GPR110, ASO2-GPR110, 5 mg/kg BW, one dose per week, s.c.) or scrambled control (ASO-NC, s.c.) received STC feeding, respectively. (A) Schematic illustration of viral treatments. (B) mRNA expression levels of GPR110 in liver and kidney as determined by qPCR analysis. mRNA expression levels of GPR110 in different tissues were normalized to the expression of mouse GAPDH. (C) Left panel: immunoblotting analysis of hepatic protein expression level of GPR110 from STC-fed mice liver with GPR110 knockdown. Right panel: quantification of hepatic protein expression levels of GPR110. Each lane is a sample from a different individual; n = 3 per group. (D) Change of body weight and (E) fasting blood glucose at different weeks upon rAAV injection were measured. (F) Fasting blood insulin level and (G) HOMA-IR values were measured and calculated at the end of the experiment. (H) GTT (1 g/kg BW, left) and area under curve (AUC, right) of serum glucose at the week of 10. (I) PTT (1 g/kg BW, left) and AUC (right) of serum glucose at week 11. (J) ITT (0.5 U/kg BW, left) and AUC (right) of serum glucose at week of 12. mRNA expression levels of the target genes were normalized to the expression of mouse GAPDH. STC, standard chow diet; s.c., subcutaneous injection; ASO, antisense oligonucleotides; BW, body weight; GTT, glucose tolerance test; PTT, pyruvate tolerance test; ITT, insulin tolerance test; AUC, area under curve; NC, negative control; HOMA-IR, homeostasis model assessment- estimated insulin resistance. Data represents as mean ± SEM; n = 8 mice per group; repeated with three independent experiments; P value analyzed by two-tailed Student’s t test. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: Deletion of hepatic GPR110 protects against diet-induced glucose intolerance in GPR110 overexpress mice.

Eight-week-old male C57BL/6J mice were infected with either 3×10¹¹ copies of rAAV encoding GPR110 (rAAV-GPR110, i.v.) or control (rAAV-GFP, i.v.) and two different sequences of GPR110 ASO (ASO1-GPR110, ASO2-GPR110, 5 mg/kg BW, one dose per week, s.c.) or scrambled control (ASO- NC, s.c.) received HFD feeding, respectively. (A) Schematic illustration of viral treatments. (B) Hepatic mRNA expression levels of GPR110 from different groups of mice received either GFP-NC, GPR110-NC, GPR110-ASO1 or GPR110-ASO2 fed with HFD, respectively, as determined by qPCR analysis. (C) Left panel: Immunoblotting analyses of GPR110 and β-tubulin from livers of HFD-fed rAAV-GFP or rAAV- GPR110 mice treated with either ASO-NC or ASO-GPR110. Each lane is a sample from a different individual. Right panel: quantification of protein expression levels of GPR110 and β-tubulin. Protein expression levels were normalized to the expression of β-tubulin. n = 3 per group. (D) Body weight was measured biweekly upon rAAV and ASO injection. (E) The percentage of fat mass and (F) the percentage of lean mass were measured at the end of the experiment. (G) The fasting blood glucose level of different groups were measured upon rAAV and ASO injection. (H) Fasting serum insulin level and (I) HOMA-IR index were measured and calculated according to the formula [Fasting blood glucose (mmol/l) × Fasting blood insulin (mIU/l)]/22.5 for the HFD-fed rAAV-GPR110 or rAAV-GFP mice at the end of the experiment. (J) GTT (1 g/kg BW, left) and AUC (right) of serum glucose at week 10. (K) PTT (1 g/kg BW, left) and AUC (right) of serum glucose at week 11. (L) ITT (0.5 U/kg BW, left) and AUC (right) of serum glucose at week 12. mRNA expression levels of the target genes were normalized to the expression of mouse GAPDH. rAAV-NC group was set as 1 for fold-change calculation. STC, standard chow diet; HFD, high-fat diet; ASO, antisense oligonucleotides; BW, body weight; GTT, glucose tolerance test; PTT, pyruvate tolerance test; ITT, insulin tolerance test; AUC, area under curve; NC, negative control; HOMA-IR, homeostasis model assessment-estimated insulin resistance. Data represents as mean ± SEM; n = 8 mice per group; repeated with three independent experiments; P value analyzed by two-tailed Student’s t test. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

In contrast, chronic ASO-GPR110 treatment for 4 weeks significantly decreased their body weight (Figure 3D), fat mass ratio (Figure 3E-F) fasting glucose level (Figure 3G), fasting insulin level (Figure 3H) and HOMA-IR (Figure 3I) in HFD-fed rAAV-GPR110 mice. In addition, treatment of ASO-GPR110s improved glucose tolerance, pyruvate tolerance and insulin sensitivity in HFD-fed rAAV-GPR110 mice as demonstrated by GTT (Figure 3J), PTT (Figure 3K) and ITT (Figure 3L) as compared to ASO-NC controls. In consistent to overexpressing GPR110 in livers, the depletion of hepatic GPR110 by ASOs improves glucose homeostasis in HFD-fed mice.

3.4. Treatment of ASO-GPR110s alleviates lipid abundance and liver damage in HFD-fed rAAV- GPR110 mice

We also checked the circulating lipid profiles of the mice. HFD-fed rAAV-GPR110 mice had higher circulating cholesterol (CHO; Figure 4A) and triglyceride (TG; Figure 4B) levels than HFD-fed rAAV- GFP littermates, but their circulating free fatty acid (FFA) levels were similar (Figure 4C). High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level was decreased, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level was increased in HFD-fed rAAV-GRP110-NC mice as compared to chronic ASO-GPR110 treatment group (Figure 4D).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4:

Up-regulation of hepatic GPR110 exaggerates liver steatosis in HFD mice fed with HFD while down-regulation of hepatic GPR110 protects mice from diet-induced liver lipid accumulation. Eight-week-old male C57BL/6J mice were infected with either 3×10¹¹ copies of rAAV encoding GPR110 (rAAV-GPR110, i.v.) or control (rAAV-NC, i.v.) and two different sequences of GPR110 antisense oligonucleotides (ASO1-GPR110, ASO2-GPR110, 5 mg/kg BW, one dose per week, s.c.) or scrambled control (ASO-NC, s.c.) received HFD feeding, respectively. (A) Serum cholesterol (CHO), (B) serum triglyceride (TG) and (C) serum free fatty acid (FFA) levels were measured at week 13. (D) Serum high- density lipoprotein (HDL) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL). (E) The levels of serum aspartate transaminase (AST) alanine transaminase (ALT). (F) The ratio of the liver weight against body weight was calculated after sacrificing the mice from four different groups. (G) Representative gross pictures of liver tissues (upper panels), representative images of H&E (middle panels) and Oil Red O (lower panels) staining of liver sections (200 µm). The percentage of lipid area according to H&E staining (right panel); n = 3 per group. (H) Hepatic CHO, (I) hepatic TG and (J) hepatic FFA were normalized by the weight of liver samples used for lipid extraction. i.v., intravenous injection; s.c., subcutaneous injection; STC, standard chow diet; HFD, high-fat diet; ASO, antisense oligonucleotides; BW, body weight; CHO, cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; FFA, free fatty acid; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; AST, aspartate transaminase; ALT, alanine transaminase; H&E, hematoxylin-eosin. Data represents as mean ± SEM; n = 8 mice per group; repeated with three independent experiments; P value analyzed by two-tailed Student’s t test. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

Remarkably, chronic ASO-GPR110 treatment could lower circulating levels of the liver enzymes aspartate transaminase (AST) and alanine aminotransaminase (ALT), as markers of liver damage and hepatoxicity, in HFD-fed rAAV-GRP110-NC mice (Figure 4E). After sacrificing the mice, we examined their hepatic lipid profiles. We found the livers of HFD-fed rAAV-GRP110 mice were significantly heavier (Figure 4F) and paler (Figure 4G, upper panels) than the livers of their rAAV-GFP littermates and ASO- GPR110 treated rAAV-GRP110 mice. Consistent with these observations, HFD-induced lipid accumulation within hepatocytes were substantially more abundant in the livers of HFD-fed rAAV- GPR110 mice than the rAAV-GFP littermates as determined by haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining and Oil Red O staining (Figure 4G, upper and middle rows). Moreover, based on the Masson trichrome staining, more fibre extension and larger fibrous septa formation was observed for the liver samples of rAAV-GPR110 mice as compared to the livers from rAAV-GFP littermates (Figure 4G, lower row). These alterations were remarkably reduced after ASO-GPR110 treatments (Figure 4G). Like the circulating lipid profiles mentioned above, treatment of ASO-GPR110s for 8 weeks could improve the hepatic lipid profiles of rAAV-GRP110 mice in terms of CHO (Figure 4H), TG (Figure 4I) and FFA (Figure 4J). Altogether, overexpression of hepatic GPR110 in mice is sufficient to perturb lipid metabolism and hence the progression of NAFLD especially in obese subjects.

3.5. The metabolic dysregulation of rAAV-GRP110 mice is correlated to the upregulation SCD1 expression

To reveal the molecular mechanism underlying the involvement of hepatic GPR110 in NAFLD development, RNA-sequencing analysis was performed on RNA samples extracted from the livers of HFD-fed ASO-NC treated rAAV-GPF, ASO-NC treated rAAV-GPR110 and ASO-GRP110 treated rAAV-GPP110 mice. In the search for the molecular processes for metabolisms, several lipid metabolism-related genes were altered (Figure 5A-B). We subsequently used RT-qPCR to confirm the RNA sequencing results (Figure 5C). Among them, we are particularly interested in stearoyl CoA desaturase 1 (SCD1). SCD1 is a key lipogenic enzyme responsible for the rate-limiting step in the synthesis of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs), such as oleate and palmitoleate, by forming double bonds in saturated fatty acids [39]. MUFAs serve as substrates for the synthesis of various kinds of lipids and increases in SCD1 activity is involved in the development of NAFLD, hypertriglyceridemia, atherosclerosis, and diabetes [40, 41].

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5: GPR110 is a major regulator of hepatic lipid metabolism.

Eight-week-old male C57BL/6J mice were infected with either 3×10¹¹ copies of rAAV encoding GPR110 (rAAV-GPR110, i.v.) or control (rAAV-NC, i.v.) and two GPR110 antisense oligonucleotides (ASO1-GPR110, ASO2-GPR110, 5 mg/kg BW, one dose per week, s.c.) or scrambled control (ASO-NC, s.c.) and received HFD feeding, respectively. Mice were sacrificed and mRNA of liver from each group were extracted and RNA-seq analysis was conducted. (A) KEGG pathway assay of differential mRNA transcripts in rAAV and ASO groups identified by RNA-seq. (B) Heat map show the Log2 scale fold change in the expression levels of a set of genes involved in lipid metabolism from RNA seq data of livers in HFD-fed mice treated by rAAV-GPR110 or rAAV-GPR110 plus GPR110-ASO1. n = 3 per group. (C) mRNA expression levels of genes according to the heatmap from different groups of mice received either GFP-NC, GPR110-NC, GPR110-ASO1 or GPR110-ASO2 fed with HFD, respectively, as determined by qPCR analysis, n = 6 mice per group. STC, standard chow diet; HFD, high-fat diet; i.v., intravenous injection; s.c., subcutaneous injection; ASO, antisense oligonucleotides; KEGG, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes; GEO, gene expression omnibus; NAFLD, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Data represents as mean ± SEM; P value analyzed by two-tailed Student’s t test. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

3.6. The upregulation of SCD1 expression in liver is driven by the presence of GPR110

To confirm SCD1 expression is induced by GPR110, in vitro assays were performed by using adenovirus-mediated GPR110 expression system (ADV-GPR110) to overexpress GPR110 in primary hepatocytes isolated from STC-fed mice. After infection, the expressions of SCD1 mRNAs (Figure 6A) and protein (Figure 6B) were dramatically induced, but not in control group which was treated with ADV- GFP. In addition, the GPR110 specific ASOs can not only knockdown the GPR110 expression, but also induced the SCD1 expression by increasing GPR110 in the ADV-GPR110 primary hepatocytes (Figure 6A-B). In vitro luciferase reporter assay was performed to further validate the expression of SCD1 is transcriptional regulated by GPR110. We constructed plasmid harbouring luciferase gene driven by the mouse SCD1 promoter (-2000 to +100) and transfected into HEK293 cells. There was no change of luciferase activity of pGL3- SCD1 promoter-luciferase transfected HEK293 cells under the treatment of GPR110 ligand DHEA, unless the HEK293 cells were pre-infected with adenovirus overexpressing GPR110 (ADV-GPR110; Figure 6C). The overexpression of GPR110 in ADV-GPR110 infected cells and inductions of SCD1 mRNA expression by treatment of DHEA were also validated by qPCR (Figure 6D). The changes in hepatocyte lipid profiles by the expression level of GPR110 and SCD1 were also checked. In agreement with our in vivo studies’ findings, the overexpression of GPR110 increased the intracellular CHO (Figure 6E), TG (Figure 6F) and FFA (Figure 6G). Their increases could be completely repressed by ASO against GPR110 (Figure 6E-G) and partially repressed by overexpressing SCD1 specific shRNAs (Figure 6F-G). In summary, the transcription level of SCD1 is regulated by GPR110. GPR110 enhances the lipid accumulation by inducing SCD1 expression.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6: SCD1 expression is regulated by GPR110 in primary hepatocytes.

Primary hepatocytes were isolated from eight-week-old male C57BL/6J mice with STC. (A) Primary hepatocytes were infected with either adenoviral vector expressing GPR110 (ADV-GPR110) or control adenovirus expressing GFP (ADV- GFP) 24h after plating, followed by transfection with ASO1-GPR110, ASO2-GPR110 or ASO-NC for another 6 hours. mRNA expression levels of GPR110 and SCD1 from different groups were assessed, as determined by qPCR analysis. (B) Left panel: immunoblotting analysis for the expression level of GPR110 and SCD1 from different groups of primary hepatocytes. Right panel: quantification of protein expression levels of GPR110 and SCD1. Protein expression levels were normalized to the expression of β-tubulin. Each lane is a sample from a different plate. Right panel: quantification of protein expression levels of GPR110, SCD1 and β-tubulin. n = 3 per group. Protein expression levels were normalized to the expression of β-tubulin. The samples for GFP were set as 1 for fold-change calculation. (C-D) HEK293 cells were infected with pGL3-SCD1 promoter-luciferase plasmid and adenoviral vector expressing GPR110 (ADV- GPR110) or GFP (ADV-GFP) for 48 h and DHEA was added to the transfected cells at the concentration of 100 μM for 24 h. Cell lysates were used for (C) luciferase assay or (D) qPCR analysis. Lysates from the cell co-transfection with pGL3-SCD1 promoter-luciferase plasmid and ADV-GFP without treatment of DHEA was set as 1 for fold-change calculation. (E-G) Primary hepatocytes were infected with either adenoviral vector expressing GPR110 (ADV-GPR110) or control ADV-GFP, followed by transfecting with scramble or shSCD1-1 or shSCD1-2 plasmids for another 72 h. Intracellular lipids were extracted and (E) CHO, (F) TG, and (G) FFA were assessed. STC, standard chow diet; i.v., intravenous injection; s.c., subcutaneous injection; ASO, antisense oligonucleotides. CHO, cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; FFA, free fatty acid. Data represents as mean ± SEM; n = 3 per group; repeated with three independent experiments; P value analysed by two-tailed Student’s t test. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

3.7. Inhibition of SCD1 in rAAV-GPR110 mice partially attenuates most metabolic dysregulations especially lipid profiles

To examine whether the up-regulation of hepatic SCD1 was the cause of metabolic dysregulation in rAAV-GRP110 mice, a liver-specific SCD1 inhibitor MK8245 were used to alleviate the metabolic dysregulation by overexpressing GPR110 in HFD-fed rAAV-GRP110 mice (Figure 7A) [27]. Chronic treatment of MK8245 for 11 weeks did not affect the expression of GPR110 mRNA (Figure 7B) and protein (Figure 7C) levels in rAAV-GRP110 mice. In agreement with previous studies showing that the chronic treatment of this SCD1 inhibitor improves various metabolic parameters including lipid and glucose profiles in various animal models [42], treatment of MK8245 lowered the body weight (Figure 7D), improved glucose homeostasis in term of fasting glucose level (Figure 7E) and HOMR-IR (Figure 7G), and performance in GTT (Figure 7H) and PTT (Figure 7I) of HFD-fed rAAV-GRP110 mice as compared to untreated littermates. But there was no change in insulin sensitivity as demonstrated by ITT (Figure 7J).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 7: Inhibition of SCD1 alleviates the glucose impairment in mice with hepatic GPR110 overexpression.

Eight-week-old male C57BL/6J mice were infected with either 3×10¹¹ copies of rAAV encoding GPR110 (rAAV-GPR110, i.v.) or control (rAAV-GFP, i.v.) and SCD1 inhibitor (MK8245, 10 mg/kg BW/week, p.o.) or inhibitor vehicle (inhibitor-Veh., p.o.) received HFD feeding. (A) Schematic illustration of viral treatments. (B) Hepatic mRNA expression levels of GPR110 from different groups of mice received rAAV and inhibitor fed with HFD respectively, as determined by qPCR analysis. (C) Left panel: immunoblotting analysis for the hepatic protein expression level of GPR110 and SCD1 from different groups of mice fed with HFD. Right panel: quantification of protein expression levels of GPR110 and SCD1. Protein expression levels were normalized to the expression of β-tubulin. Each lane is a sample from a different individual; n = 3 per group. (D) Body weight and (E) fasting blood glucose level were measured at different weeks upon rAAV and inhibitor injection. (F) The fasting blood insulin level and (G) HOMA-IR index were measured and calculated according to the formula [Fasting blood glucose (mmol/l) × Fasting blood insulin (mIU/l)]/22.5 for the HFD-fed rAAV-GPR110 or rAAV-GFP mice at the end of the experiment. (H) GTT (1 g/kg BW, left) and AUC (right) of serum glucose at the week of 10. (I) PTT (1 g/kg BW, left) and AUC (right) of serum glucose at week 11. (J) ITT (0.5 U/kg BW, left) and AUC (right) of serum glucose at week of 12. mRNA expression levels of the target genes were normalized to the expression of mouse GAPDH. rAAV- NC group was set as 1 for fold-change calculation. HFD, high-fat diet; i.v., intravenous injection; p.o., oral administration; ASO, antisense oligonucleotides; BW, body weight; GTT, glucose tolerance test; PTT, pyruvate tolerance test; ITT, insulin tolerance test; AUC, area under curve; NC, negative control; HOMA- IR, homeostasis model assessment-estimated insulin resistance. Data represents as mean ± SEM; n = 8 mice per group; repeated with three independent experiments; P value analysed by two-tailed Student’s t test. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

MK8245 treatment also lowered the circulating CHO (Figure 8A) and TG (Figure 8B) levels almost to the levels of HFD-fed rAAV-GFP mice, but there was no change in circulating FFA level (Figure 8C). A relatively higher HDL can be found in the MK8245 group but there were no differences detected regarding the LDL level (Figure 8D). The AST and ALT levels were also alleviated in the MK8245 group compared to the rAAV-GPR110 littermates (Figure 8E). MK8245 treatment partially reduced the liver weight (Figure 8F), degree of paleness, severity of fibrosis (Figure 8G) and lipid accumulations (Figure 8H-J). To conclude, treatment of MK8245 could improve the lipid profiles and alleviate metabolic dysregulation caused by overexpression of hepatic GPR110 in mice.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 8: Inhibition of hepatic SCD1 partially alleviates the severity of hepatic steatosis in GPR110 overexpression mice.

Eight-week-old male C57BL/6N mice were infected with either 3×10¹¹ copies of rAAV encoding GPR110 (rAAV-GPR110, i.v.) or control (rAAV-GFP, i.v.) and administered with SCD1 inhibitor (MK8245, 10 mg/kg BW, p.o.) or inhibitor vehicle (inhibitor-Veh., p.o.) received HFD feeding. (A) Serum CHO, (B) serum TG and (C) serum FFA levels were measured at the end of experiment. (D) Serum HDL and LDL, (E) AST and ALT level of each group of mice were measured at the end of the experiment. (F) The ratio of the liver weight against body weight was calculated after sacrificing the mice from four different groups. (G) Representative gross pictures of liver tissues (upper panels), representative images of H&E (middle panels) and Oil Red O (lower panels) staining of liver sections (200 µm). The percentage of lipid area according to H&E staining (right panel); n = 3 per group. (H) Hepatic CHO, (I) hepatic TG and (J) hepatic FFA were normalized by the weight of liver samples used for lipid extraction. STC, standard chow diet; HFD, high-fat diet; i.v., intravenous injection; p.o., oral administration; CHO, cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; FFA, free fatty acid; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; AST, aspartate transaminase; ALT, alanine transaminase; H&E, hematoxylin-eosin. Data represents as mean ± SEM; n = 8 mice per group; repeated with three independent experiments; P value analyzed by two-tailed Student’s t test. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

3.8. Expression of GPR110 in liver is closely associated with hepatic steatosis in NAFLD patients

To evaluate the clinical relevance of our findings in mice, we first checked the expression level of GPR110 in human liver from a publicized transcriptome dataset Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO; Profile # GDS4881) with human liver biopsy of different phases from control to NAFLD [43]. Healthy obese subjects without NAFLD had lower GPR110 mRNA expression than healthy lean subjects, but obese NAFLD subjects had similar GPR110 mRNA expression level as healthy lean subjects (Figure 9A). Subsequently, by using the same transcriptome dataset, we investigated the correlation in the expression level of GPR110 and SCD1. The expression level of GPR110 was positively correlated with SCD1 in the liver (r = 0.4635, P < 0.05; Figure 9B). To verify the observation, we performed immunohistochemistry staining with liver sections from biopsy-proven patients with mild, moderate, and severe NAFLD, respectively (Table S4). The degree of steatosis was determined by non-alcoholic steatohepatitis clinical research network (NASH CRN) scoring system [34]. Immunostaining analysis demonstrated that hepatic expression of GPR110 protein was higher in the ones with severe steatosis than those with lower degree of NAFLD (Figure 9C). These data collectively suggest that GPR110 expression level correlates to hepatic steatosis in humans as well.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 9:

Hepatic expression of GPR110 is upregulated in obese patients with hepatic steatosis when compared to those with normal liver morphology, which is positively associated with hepatic SCD1 expression level. NAFLD patients have higher hepatic expression of GPR110 accompanied with increased mRNA SCD1 expression. (A) Normalized Log2 mRNA expression of GPR110 in lean people without NAFLD (n = 12), obese people without NAFLD (n = 17) or obese patients with NAFLD (n = 8) according to the GEO database (GEO; Profile # GDS4881 / 8126820). (B) Correlation between GPR110 and SCD1 in liver of human subjects based on the GEO database. (C) Representative images of liver tissues with H&E staining (upper panels) and immunohistochemical staining (IHC) of GPR110 (lower panels) from patients with different degree of NAFLD (200 µm). The percentage of GPR110 positive area according to H&E staining (right panel). The percentage of GPR110 positive areas according to IHC staining (right panel); n = 3 per group. Data represents as mean ± SEM. P value analyzed by two-tailed Student’s t test. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.