Next Article in Journal
Recent Advances in Synthesis of Benzothiazole Compounds Related to Green Chemistry
Previous Article in Journal
Novel Mutant Phospholipase D from Hemiscorpius lepturus Acts as A Highly Immunogen in BALB/c Mice Against the Lethality of Scorpion Venom
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Molecules
Volume 25
Issue 7
10.3390/molecules25071674
molecules-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Hepcidin and Erythroferrone Correlate with Hepatic Iron Transporters in Rats Supplemented with Multispecies Probiotics

by
Katarzyna Skrypnik
1,*,
Paweł Bogdański
2,
Magdalena Sobieska
3 and
Joanna Suliburska
1
1
Institute of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego St. 31, 60-624 Poznań, Poland
2
Department of Treatment of Obesity, Metabolic Disorders and Clinical Dietetics, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Szamarzewskiego St. 84, 60-569 Poznań, Poland
3
Department of Physiotherapy, Chair for Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, 28. Czerwca 1956r St. 135/147, 61-545 Poznań, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2020, 25(7), 1674; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/molecules25071674
Submission received: 5 February 2020 / Revised: 30 March 2020 / Accepted: 3 April 2020 / Published: 5 April 2020
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The influence of probiotic supplementation on iron metabolism remains poorly investigated. However, a range of studies, especially on Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (Lp229v), have indicated a possible positive impact of probiotics on iron absorption. The aim of the study was to determine the effect of multistrain probiotic supply on iron balance. Thirty Wistar rats were randomized into three groups: placebo (KK group), and multistrain probiotic per os in a daily dose of 2.5 × 109 colony forming units (CFU) (PA group) or 1 × 1010 CFU (PB group). Multistrain probiotic consisted of nine bacterial strains: Bifidobacterium bifidum W23, B. lactis W51, B. lactis W52, Lactobacillus acidophilus W37, L. brevis W63, L. casei W56, L. salivarius W24, Lactococcus lactis W19, and Lc. lactis W58, in equal proportions. After six weeks, blood and organ samples were collected. No differences were found between the three groups in terms of serum concentrations of hepcidin (HEPC), lactoferrin (LTF), homocysteine (HCY), ferritin (Ft), or erythroferrone (ErFe), or in liver content of divalent metal transporter 1 (DMT1), transferrin receptors 1 and 2 (TfR), or ZRT/IRT-like protein 14 (ZIP14) proteins. In the overall sample, positive correlations were noted between the serum concentrations of hepcidin and lactoferrin, and hepcidin and ferritin; serum concentration of hepcidin and DMT1 and TfR1 in the liver; and serum concentration of erythroferrone and TfR2 in the liver. The correlations of serum hepcidin and erythroferrone with liver DMT1 and TfR represent significant mechanisms of Fe homeostasis. Our study has shown that multistrain probiotic supplementation used in the experiment did not disrupt the biochemical and hepatic regulatory processes of Fe balance and did not demonstrate significant influence on selected parameters of Fe metabolism.

1. Introduction

Correct iron (Fe) metabolism enabling the proper functioning of the body is crucial for a range of physiological processes. As a component of hemoglobin and myoglobin particles, Fe takes part in oxygen and energy balance [1]. Fe plays an essential role in catalytic processes involving enzymes such as peroxidase, cytochromes, and catalase [1]. Maintenance of a healthy state requires sufficient stores of this microelement, yet Fe excess is a factor leading to such detrimental states as intensified oxidative stress [2], inflammation [3], liver [4] and cardiac [5] dysfunction, kidney injury [6], neurodegeneration [2], adipose tissue dysfunction [7], glucose metabolism disorders [8], and disrupted gene expression [9]. On the other hand, Fe deficiency leads to anemia [10].
The human body contains about 3–5 g of Fe [11]. Intestinal Fe absorption takes place mainly in the duodenum and upper jejunum. Inorganic dietary nonheme ferric iron is reduced by membrane-bound ferrireductase (DCYTB) and then absorbed by duodenal enterocytes via divalent metal transporter 1 (DMT1) [12]. However, our understanding of this reduction process is not complete, and the role of DCYTB is not clear [13]. Fe is released from the enterocytes to the bloodstream by basolateral exporter ferroportin. Fe is transported in the blood in the form of transferrin [14]. Transferrin binds to transferrin receptor 1 (TfR1), which is especially highly expressed on erythroblast surfaces, and internalizes into cells [15]. It is hypothesized that simultaneously, TfR1-associated protein (HFE) is translocated from TfR1 into transferrin receptor 2 (TfR2), which induces hepcidin (HEPC) secretion [16]. However, there are still scientific doubts as to how HFE and TfR2 might regulate hepcidin expression [17]. Hepcidin, a 25-amino-acid peptide hormone [18], binds to ferroportin, resulting in its internalization and degradation, preventing tissue Fe overload [15]. Erythroferrone (ErFe), a peptide hormone produced by erythroblasts, suppresses hepcidin expression, leading to increased Fe availability from the diet [19]. Small amounts of non-transferrin-bound iron (NTBI) are transported from the bloodstream into cells by the ZRT/IRT-like protein 14 (ZIP14) [20]. Tissue Fe is stored in the form of ferritin (Ft), mainly in the hepatic parenchyma. Ferritin acts as a tissue buffer against Fe deficiency and overload. Small amounts of ferritin are present in the bloodstream and serve as a diagnostic marker of somatic Fe levels [15]. Lactoferrin (LTF), a nonheme protein, also binds Fe in the form of Fe(III), regulating Fe metabolism and preventing Fe overload [21]. However, there are still doubts that lactoferrin plays a role in Fe metabolism. While it may bind Fe, its effects are predominantly antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory [22]. It has recently been demonstrated that the synthesis of homocysteine (HCY), a broadly investigated risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, is catalyzed by Fe. It is thus hypothesized that a homocysteine serum level is a marker of non-protein-bound Fe (free Fe) [23].
Maintaining proper Fe balance ensuring full health to the organism is dependent not only on adequate Fe supply, but also broadly on intestinal Fe alterations and absorption [24]. As there is no regulated Fe excretory mechanism, proper Fe absorption from the diet is crucial for its homeostasis [25]. It has recently been documented that intestinal dietary Fe and gut microbiota interact, leading to significant changes in Fe balance [26,27,28]. The gut microbiota decreases the quantity of Fe-binding substances converting Fe-binding ellagic acid into urolithin A [29] and turn Fe ions into Fe(II), an ionic form absorbable in the intestine [1]. Rodents lacking intestinal microbiota show an Fe deficit in intestinal cells and decreased intestinal absorption and retention [27,30]. Furthermore, antibiotic treatment significantly abates gut Fe absorption in rats and rabbits [15]. On the other hand, dietary Fe deficiency leads to a translocation of gut bacteria [28], decreased intestinal microbiota heterogeneity [31], and significant intestinal microbiota dysbiosis, as shown by alterations such as elevated abundance of Veillonellaceae and Enterobacteriaceae and decreased representation of Coriobacteriaceae [32]. However, the sophisticated crosstalk between the host’s intestine and gut bacteria, which affects Fe homeostasis, has not yet been sufficiently investigated [15]. It is well proven that the main site of iron absorption in the gut is the proximal small intestine. However, limited studies have revealed that in the intestinal parts of rats that are abundant in microbiota, such as the colon, the presence of DMT1 on enterocytes is elevated, which can ameliorate Fe gut absorption [33]. Lactoferrin, an Fe-binding glycoprotein, is able to decrease adhesion and invasion of Shigella, responsible for colon disorders [34]. Moreover, it has been documented that the intestinal microbiota regulates the gut expression of DCYTB, DMT1, TfR, and ferritin genes in epigenetic mode [15]. However, studies on gut microbiota and Fe metabolism are still scant. As gut microbiota is responsible for bioconversion of nutrients, Fe in this range, it is supposed that the loss of proper microbiota function may lead to disordered metabolism of microelements such as Fe [35]. Recently, it has been hypothesized that disturbed microbiota takes part in the development of a number of diseases, such as celiac disease [36] or gastric disorders [37].
In recent years, many studies have looked at how to ameliorate gut microbiota, with probiotics becoming the most effective intervention [38]. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have defined probiotics as living microorganisms that beneficially affect the host’s health [39]. Recently, the favorable effect of probiotic supply on Fe homeostasis, including intestinal and liver Fe balance, has been shown [27,40]. In particular, Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (Lp299v) has been shown to exert beneficial influence on Fe metabolism. Bering et al. have documented that a lactic fermented (Lactobacillus plantarum 299v) oat gruel increased Fe absorption in healthy young females [41]. In addition, Hoppe et al. in a series of human studies documented improved Fe absorption as an effect of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v [42,43]. These and other studies became a background for health claim application to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on increased Fe absorption as an effect of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v administration. However, EFSA did not approve the application stating that there is no sufficient evidence for the claim and that no plausible mechanism of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v was pointed [44]. EFSA refusal initiated scientific teams to perform further studies, not only human, but also in vitro [45] and animal [46], showing a beneficial effect of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v on Fe absorption. In our study, we have implemented multistrain probiotic consisted of nine bacterial strains: Bifidobacterium bifidum W23, B. lactis W51, B. lactis W52, Lactobacillus acidophilus W37, L. brevis W63, L. casei W56, L. salivarius W24, Lactococcus lactis W19, and Lc. lactis W58, in equal proportions. As the influence of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v on Fe metabolism is well investigated, in our study, we used a probiotic mixture with no addition of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v.
The WHO’s and FAO’s definitions state that the healthful benefits of probiotics are related to the choice of dose and need to be demonstrated for each strain separately [39]; as a result, the vast majority of studies on probiotics have employed one, or occasionally two, strains in a single dose.
In our previous paper [47] on multistrain probiotic supplementation in two doses in rats, we reported that, at the completion of supplementation, the liver mass of the rats was significantly smaller in groups receiving probiotics compared to the control group not receiving probiotics. In addition, the group receiving the higher dose of probiotics presented a significantly lower serum concentration of triglycerides and alanine transaminase (ALT), an important marker of liver function [48], compared to the control group. These results allowed us to state that multistrain probiotic supplementation does not disturb liver function and even exerts a favorable and dose-dependent effect on the liver. In our second paper, presenting further results of the same experiment [49], we showed that serum Fe was lower in both groups receiving probiotics compared to the control group. Moreover, Fe content in the liver was higher in the group supplemented with the higher dose of probiotics compared to control, and in the duodenum Fe content was higher in both supplemented groups compared to the control group. We concluded that oral multispecies probiotic supplementation induces an Fe shift from serum and intensifies liver Fe uptake. Intensified liver Fe uptake may lead to hepatic Fe overload [50]. It was shown that liver iron overload was associated with elevated blood levels of ALT [51]. However, in our previous studies, we did not find this relationship [47,49].
Based on our previous results [47,49], which showed the influence of multistrain probiotics on iron status in rats, in this study, we decided to explore the issue investigating biochemical markers of Fe balance. Thus, in the present paper, we analyzed the content of DMT1, TfR1, TfR2, and ZIP14 in liver homogenate samples and serum concentration of hepcidin, homocysteine, lactoferrin, ferritin, and erythroferrone. The present paper shows the results of implementation of the same probiotic mixture consisting of nine bacterial strains: Bifidobacterium bifidum W23, B. lactis W51, B. lactis W52, Lactobacillus acidophilus W37, L. brevis W63, L. casei W56, L. salivarius W24, Lactococcus lactis W19, and Lc. lactis W58, in equal proportions, which was presented in our former papers [47,49]. As shown in our previous publication [47,49], daily doses of supplemented probiotics were 2.5 × 109 colony forming units (CFU) in the PA group (n = 10 rats) and 1 × 1010 CFU in the PB group (n = 10 rats) compared to placebo (KK group; n = 10 rats). The aim of our present study was to investigate the influence of six weeks of multispecies probiotic supply per os in two doses on selected Fe metabolism parameters in rats.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Animals

The study protocol was approved by the local animal studies bioethics committee (approval no. 24/2017) and conformed to protocols of Poznań University of Life Sciences, the Polish law on animal studies, the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (National Institutes of Health Publication No. 80–23, Revised 1978), and the European Communities Council Directive of 24 November 1986. Thirty male Wistar rats of the same strain, at the age of 10 weeks, were obtained from the Department of Toxicology at Poznań Medical University, Poland, directly before the experiment. This was the same set of rats we described in our previous papers [47,49]. The rats’ mean body mass at baseline was 263 ± 22 g [47]. Details of animal breeding conditions are presented in our previous papers [47,49].

2.2. Experimental Design

Using a random number generator, the study animals were randomized into 3 groups with 10 rats per group: KK, PA, and PB. The trial lasted 6 weeks. Throughout the experiment, the rats received a standard AIN-93M maintenance diet (Altromin, Lage, Germany). The Fe content in the diet was determined after digestion in 65% (w/w) spectra pure HNO3 (Merck, Kenilworth, NJ, USA) in a microwave digestion system (Speedwave Xpert, Berghof, Eningen, Germany). After digestion and dilution with deionized water, the Fe content in the mineral solution was determined using flame atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS-3, Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany). The Fe content in the diet was measured at a wavelength of 248.3 nm. The PA and PB groups additionally received a multispecies probiotic in their diet at a dose of 2.5 × 109 CFU/day (PA) or 1 × 1010 CFU/day (PB). No probiotic was added to the diet of the control group (KK). Further details of the experimental design are presented in our previous papers [47,49].

2.3. Probiotic

A probiotic mixture of 9 bacterial strains at a dose of 2.5 × 109 CFU/g (Bifidobacterium bifidum W23, B. lactis W51, B. lactis W52, Lactobacillus acidophilus W37, L. brevis W63, L. casei W56, L. salivarius W24, Lactococcus lactis W19, and Lc. lactis W58, in equal proportions) was dispersed directly into a ration of the diet. The specific probiotic mixture was Ecologic Barrier (Winclove Probiotics, Amsterdam, Netherlands) [52]. Probiotics administered to rats were active. This could be seen by differences in total fecal bacteria content between supplemented groups (higher in PB group) and increasing (although insignificantly) Lactobacillus fecal content with increased probiotic dose [49]. Details of supplemented probiotics are presented in our previous papers [47,49].

2.4. Blood and Liver Collection

Euthanasia of rats by carbon dioxide inhalation, preceded by body mass measurement, took place after 6 weeks of the trial. All animals were euthanized during the same time period each day, in the morning. Blood samples were collected in serum-separated tubes by cardiac puncture after 12 h fasting in order to obtain serum. During sectioning, the liver was removed, washed in saline, weighed, and stored at −20 °C. Whole blood was also collected. Detailed procedures of blood and liver sample collection are described in our previous papers [47,49].

2.5. Biochemical and Mineral Measurements

The concentrations of HEPC, LTF, HCY, Ft, and ErFe in the collected serum were determined using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Commercial ELISA kits were employed (Fine Test, Wuhan Fine Biological Technology, Hubei, China) and absorption spectrophotometry was used (LEDetect96, Labexim, Lengau, Austria). The accuracy of the concentration measurements was checked in each case by the following procedure: 2 standards were run as samples, and their calculated concentrations were compared to nominal ones; additionally, 3 randomly chosen rat samples were run in triplicate and their concentrations were compared. In each procedure, coefficient of variance did not exceed 5%. Reproducibility was verified using the control serum sample provided by the kit producer. Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) was measured at a commercial laboratory.
Liver sample homogenates were prepared using an automatic homogenizer (MagNALyser, Roche, Basel, Switzerland). The concentrations of DMT1, TfR1, TfR2, and ZIP14 in the liver homogenate samples were estimated using commercial ELISA kits (Shanghai Qayee Biotechnology, Shanghai, China, for DMT1, TfR1, and TfR2; Bioassay Technology Laboratory, Shanghai, China, for ZIP14).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The data are shown as arithmetic means ± standard deviations. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to check if the variables were distributed normally. The groups were compared using ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test. A Pearson correlation test was carried out to calculate the correlation coefficients. A p-value of less than 0.05 was regarded as significant. Statistica for Windows 10.0 was used (StatSoft, Kraków, Poland). It was calculated that a sample size of 10 rats in each group would yield 80% power of detecting statistical significance at the 0.05 α level.

3. Results

Serum concentrations of the Fe metabolism parameters (hepcidin, lactoferrin, homocysteine, ferritin, and erythroferrone) are presented in Table 1. No significant differences were found in hepcidin, lactoferrin, homocysteine, ferritin, and erythroferrone serum concentrations between the three groups. Thus, we saw no effect of the probiotic dose on these parameters. In all study rats, serum CRP level was below 1.0 mg/L, indicating no inflammatory state [53]. The levels of DMT1, TfR1, TfR2, and ZIP14 proteins in the liver are presented in Table 2. There were no significant differences between the three groups in terms of the content of DMT1, TfR1, TfR2, or ZIP14 protein in the liver. However, in our previous paper [49], we found a range of significant differences in Fe distribution following probiotic supplementation: serum Fe was lower in both PA and PB groups vs. KK group, and Fe content in the liver was higher in the PB group vs. the KK group [49]. Fe content in the diet was 56 mg/kg.
Correlation analysis of the overall sample (n = 30 rats) revealed a range of positive correlations between the serum concentrations of hepcidin and lactoferrin, and hepcidin and ferritin. Interestingly, in the overall sample (n = 30), a positive correlation was found between the serum concentrations of hepcidin and DMT1 in the liver, hepcidin, and TfR1 in the liver, and erythroferrone and TfR2 in the liver. Moreover, positive correlations were seen in all rats (n = 30) between the hepatic content of DMT1 and TfR1, and TfR1 and TfR2, and a negative correlation between DMT1 and ZIP14. The significant correlations found in the overall sample (n = 30 rats) are presented in Table 3 and Figure 1.

4. Discussion

Despite the research to date, still not much is known about the mechanisms by which probiotic supplementation affects Fe homeostasis and the lack of the knowledge in this range has been pointed by EFSA [44]. However, some pathways for which probiotics impact iron metabolism have been investigated. In an in vitro study, Sandberg et al. has shown that a probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (Lp299v) effect on Fe absorption is mediated through the Fe3+/DCYTB axis–ferric reductase DCYTB is increased in the presence of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (Lp299v) [45]. In an animal study, Adiki et al. documented that probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (Lp299v) increases Fe absorption from the diet, and this effect was independent from probiotic dose [46]. In human studies, Hoppe et al. [43] have shown that intake of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (Lp299v) ameliorates iron absorption from a fruit drink. Authors hypothesize that this effect may be related to the colonization of the bacteria in the gut or increased mucin excretion caused by Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (Lp299v) [54]. Another possible mechanism of increased Fe absorption caused by probiotics can be decrease in intestinal pH, leading to the reduction of ferric Fe into absorbable ferrous Fe as an effect of lactobacilli growth [55]. However, other studies did not confirm this mechanism [56,57]. In addition, Hoppe et al. documented that freeze-dried Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (Lp299v) increases the absorption of Fe when administered with a meal [42]. Recently, it has been postulated that probiotic Lactobacillus, due to synthesized p-hydroxyphenyllactic acid, shows a ferric-reducing activity, which also intensifies duodenal Fe absorption [26,58]. In our study, we used multistrain probiotic consisting of nine bacterial strains: Bifidobacterium bifidum W23, B. lactis W51, B. lactis W52, Lactobacillus acidophilus W37, L. brevis W63, L. casei W56, L. salivarius W24, Lactococcus lactis W19, and Lc. lactis W58, in equal proportions. As the influence of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v on Fe metabolism is well investigated [41,42,43], in our study, we used probiotic mixture with no addition of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (Lp299v).
In our previous paper, we reported higher hepatic and duodenal Fe levels and lower serum Fe levels as effects of probiotic supply [49]. In this study, we attempted to investigate the effect of probiotic supply on Fe balance using a more analytical approach. The novelty of our study is the use of dose-comparison mode and multistrain probiotics, which is unique among studies of Fe metabolism. Moreover, we investigated the effects of probiotic supply on erythroferrone, a scarcely investigated marker of Fe balance. In addition, we show a range of significant correlations between biochemical factors involved in Fe turnover, which have not been previously reported in conditions of multistrain probiotic supplementation. The findings presented in this paper significantly increase our knowledge of Fe balance in conditions of probiotic supply and allow us to state that probiotic supplementation with probiotic mixture with no addition of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (Lp299v) does not disturb investigated biochemical regulatory mechanisms responsible for Fe metabolism, despite a previously reported increase in liver Fe stores, which we have shown in experimental study [49].
A multistrain probiotic supplement administered in the study to rats was active. This could be seen by total fecal bacteria content higher in PB group compared to PA group and increasing (although insignificantly) Lactobacillus fecal content in feces with increased probiotic dose [49]. Thus, it should be stated that probiotic supplements used in the study fulfilled the viability condition given in the WHO probiotic definition [39]. Our previous study [49] revealed a significant effect of multistrain probiotic supplementation on Fe metabolism. This former study [49] revealed a favorable effect of oral multispecies probiotic supplementation on Fe availability and duodenal Fe absorption. Moreover, multistrain probiotic resulted in Fe shift from serum and intensified pancreatic and liver iron uptake. These outcomes, accompanied by differences in total fecal bacteria content and Lactobacillus fecal content (although insignificant) between groups [49], have shown that, in relation to a timing of gut colonization by probiotic bacteria, a period of 6 weeks was long enough to induce significant iron-related response. Hoppe et al. [43] have documented significant changes in Fe-metabolism in response to probiotic supplementation after a period as short as four days.
The most relevant result of our study presented in this paper is the lack of influence of probiotic supplementation on Fe metabolism in the range of analyzed parameters. Neither the daily dose of 2.5 × 109 CFU nor 1 × 1010 CFU exerted the significant influence on serum concentration of ferritin, hepcidin, erythroferrone, lactoferrin, and homocystein. As serum ferritin is the most important marker of body Fe status [15], it should be stated that total Fe body stores in response to probiotic supply remained unchanged. Furthermore, the experiment revealed no differences between probiotic and placebo supplemented groups in the range of liver Fe-related molecules: DMT1, TfR1, TfR2, ZIP14, independently from probiotic dose. This shows that probiotic supply with probiotic mixture with no addition of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (Lp299v) implemented in the study did not affect Fe homeostasis.
Somatic Fe is stored mainly in the liver parenchyma in the form of ferritin [15]. In this study, we found no differences in serum ferritin concentration between study and control groups. We did, however, show that multistrain probiotic supplementation in the PA group resulted in insignificantly higher liver levels of DMT1 and TfR1 than in the PB and KK groups (DMT1: p = 0.7410 for PA vs. PB and p = 0.7391 for PA vs. KK; TfR1: p = 0.9558 for PA vs. PB and p = 0.9920 for PA vs. KK). Nam et al. [20] reported that DMT1 content in the liver was 200% higher in Fe-deficient rats and 70% lower in Fe-loaded rats than in Fe-adequate rats. They similarly noted that the hepatic level of TfR1 increased in Fe-deficient animals and decreased in Fe-loaded rats. On the other hand, hepatic ZIP14 content increased in Fe-loaded and hepatic Fe-overloaded rats as compared to Fe-adequate ones [20]. In the present study, we observed that that hepatic content of ZIP14 did not differ between study groups: in the PB group, it was even insignificantly lower than in the KK and PA groups (p = 0.9869 for PB vs. KK and p = 0.9789 for PB vs. PA). Our results thus demonstrate that multistrain probiotic supplementation did not lead to hepatic Fe overload.
We show here that the hepatic content of TfR2 was higher in the PA group than in the PB and control groups, though the difference did not reach the level of significance. After binding HFE translocated from TfR1, TfR2 induces hepcidin synthesis, which should lead to increased hepcidin serum concentration [16]. However, we did not observe altered hepcidin serum content, nor did we observe significant differences in the erythroferrone serum level between the three groups. Studies on β-thalassemia have revealed that erythroferrone contributes to Fe overload in conditions of ineffective erythropoiesis [59,60]. It also acts as an hepcidin suppressor during stress erythropoiesis [60]. Based on our results, we can state that multistrain probiotic supplementation does not disturb the interaction between hepcidin and erythroferrone, does not disrupt Fe homeostasis, and does not lead to Fe overload, despite increased hepatic Fe content [15]. This demonstrates the safety of probiotic supplementation in the range of Fe balance.
Interestingly, we noted a range of significant correlations in the overall sample (n = 30) that have not been reported previously in any trial with probiotic intervention. The serum hepcidin level correlated positively with hepatic DMT1 and TfR1 content, and there was also a positive correlation between hepatic levels of DMT1 and TfR1, accompanied by a negative correlation between the hepatic levels of DMT1 and ZIP14. The positive correlations of hepcidin with DMT1, of hepcidin with TfR1, and of DMT1 with TfR1 represent a physiological mechanism of well-balanced Fe homeostasis and prevent an excess of Fe in the blood [12,15,20]. Furthermore, we show here positive correlation between serum ferritin and hepcidin concentrations—mechanisms preventing serum and tissue Fe overload [15], which hypothetically led to the previously noted increased duodenal Fe accumulation [49]. Our result confirms the undisturbed hepcidin action and proper functioning of mechanisms that prevented Fe excess in our study population.
We noted a positive correlation between serum hepcidin and lactoferrin, a globular glycoprotein with strong Fe-binding and antimicrobial properties [61,62]. It has been demonstrated that lactoferrin does not present antibacterial activity against probiotics [63]. The lack of difference in lactoferrin blood concentration between the study and control groups found in our trial shows that the administration of probiotics has no effect on lactoferrin levels.
However, it should be stated that, despite p-values of presented correlations indicating their significance, the r-values are quite low. This shows that associations between analyzed molecules are not strong and the issue of interdependencies found in the study requires further investigation.
In our previous study [49], we found that multistrain probiotic supplementation led to increased duodenal and liver Fe content and decreased serum Fe concentration. The results of that study seem to be coherent with the results presented in this paper. Despite decreased serum Fe content and increased liver Fe level, in this study, we did not find differences in ferritin serum level between groups. This suggests that what we observed was an Fe shift—Fe present in serum has been translocated to the liver, and total Fe body stores remained stable. Interestingly, previously, we registered an increased Fe duodenal level as a result of probiotic supply. We hypothesize that this was an effect of increased diet Fe absorption with stable, or even decreased, Fe transport from duodenal cells to the bloodstream. However, this should be accompanied by altered hepcidin and erythroferrone serum levels, which was not observed in the study. Undoubtedly, such results need further investigation and the lack of significant differences between groups in the range of selected biochemical parameters presented in this paper might be an effect of a too-short supplementation period, as we stated in the section on limitations of the study (below). On the other hand, the lack of difference in serum hepcidin and erythroferrone levels between groups confirms our hypothesis that, despite higher Fe content in the liver in the PB group compared to control, multistrain probiotic supplementation did not lead to Fe overload. Furthermore, Fe overload is correlated not only with intensified hepcidin production, but also with inflammation. In our trial, we observed low levels of serum CRP in all groups of rats (i.e., below 1.0 mg/L), which indicates no inflammatory state in the study animals and seems to further confirm our hypothesis of no hepatic Fe excess and undisturbed biochemical regulatory mechanisms responsible for Fe balance in our study [15,49].
Non-protein-bound Fe is a catalyst for oxygen free radical synthesis, a causative factor of intensified oxidative stress with great detrimental health consequences. Recently, homocysteine serum concentration has been identified not only as an indicator of a non-protein-bound Fe level, but also as a marker of oxidative stress and cardiovascular risk [23]. Our study found no differences in homocysteine serum content between the three groups of rats. Thus, we can presume that multistrain probiotic supplementation does not affect non-protein-bound Fe serum content.

4.1. Strong Points of the Study

The strongest point of our study is its analytical approach, which aims to clarify the biochemical basis of the effect of probiotic supplementation on Fe metabolism [49]. Moreover, we administered the probiotic supplementation in two doses in rats without a previously induced Fe deficit and with no Fe supply, which had not been done in any previous trial. In addition, the animal study approach allowed us to determine the levels of Fe metabolism-related molecules such as DMT1, ZIP14, TfR1, and TfR2 in the hepatic tissue. No such analysis had previously been carried out under conditions of probiotic supply. Finally, our trial succeeded in showing significant correlations of the hepatic concentrations of these molecules. Our study shows undisturbed Fe regulatory mechanisms in conditions of multistrain probiotic supply.

4.2. Limitations of the Study

One significant limitation of our study is that we did not analyze a range of molecules that take part in Fe turnover, such as HFE, ferroportin, and NTBI. This suggests the possibility of further studies in the field of probiotic supply and Fe homeostasis. The study period of six weeks was also perhaps not sufficient to reveal a range of significant results. In particular, we did not analyze feces for Fe content. This should be done in future trials. Some studies have demonstrated that hepcidin levels can be affected by prolonged fasting [64,65]. Thus, using a fasting period in our trial may constitute a limitation in reference to determining hepcidin serum levels. In addition, we have not analyzed the content of Fe metabolism related molecules in the intestine, duodenum in this range. However, in the experiment samples, duodenum has been used to determine the Fe content, which has been presented in our previous paper [49]. This points to the directions of future study in the range of probiotics and Fe homeostasis. Moreover, multistrain probiotic supplement implemented in the study did not include Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (Lp299v), which has been shown to impact iron absorption in both humans and animals.

5. Conclusions

Six weeks of oral supplementation with multistrain probiotic consisting of nine bacterial strains: Bifidobacterium bifidum W23, B. lactis W51, B. lactis W52, Lactobacillus acidophilus W37, L. brevis W63, L. casei W56, L. salivarius W24, Lactococcus lactis W19, and Lc. lactis W58, in equal proportions in two doses (2.5 × 109 CFU/day, n = 10 rats and 1 × 1010 CFU/day, n = 10 rats) did not demonstrate a significant influence on selected parameters of Fe metabolism. The lack of significant effect of the particular multistrain probiotic used in the study on selected parameters of Fe metabolism could have resulted from no Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (Lp299v) addition to the probiotic mixture. The positive correlations of serum hepcidin and liver divalent metal transporter 1, serum hepcidin and liver transferrin receptor 1, and serum erythroferrone and liver transferrin receptor 2 seem to represent a range of significant interdependencies in the field of somatic Fe homeostasis. Further studies on a larger scale are needed to draw more precise conclusions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.S. and J.S.; Data curation, K.S., M.S., and J.S.; Formal analysis, J.S.; Funding acquisition, P.B. and J.S.; Investigation, K.S., P.B., M.S., and J.S.; Methodology, K.S., M.S., and J.S.; Project administration, P.B. and J.S.; Supervision, P.B. and J.S.; Visualization, K.S. and J.S.; Writing—original draft, K.S.; Writing—review and editing, P.B., M.S., and J.S. The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on request. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Poznań, Poland, through a grant for young researchers, No. 507.786.13. The funding source had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the manuscript, or decision to publish the results.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Animals

All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in the studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted. All of the experimental procedures were approved by the local bioethics committee for animal studies (approval No. 24/2017).

Abbreviations

ALT alanine transaminase
CRP C-reactive protein
CVcardiovascular
DCYTBmembrane-bound ferrireductases
DMT1divalent metal transporter
EFSAEuropean Food Safety Authority
ELISAenzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
ErFe erythroferrone
FAOFood and Agriculture Organization
Ftferritin
Feiron
free Fenon-protein-bound Fe
HCYhomocysteine
HEPChepcidin
HFE TfR1-associated protein
Hgb hemoglobin
LTF lactoferrin
NTBI non-transferrin-bound iron
TfR1 transferrin receptor 1
TfR2 transferrin receptor 2
WHO World Health Organization
ZIP14 ZRT/IRT-like protein 14

References

  1. Silva, B.; Faustino, P. An overview of molecular basis of iron metabolism regulation and the associated pathologies. Biochim. et Biophys. Acta (BBA) - Mol. Basis Dis. 2015, 1852, 1347–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Carocci, A.; Catalano, A.; Sinicropi, M.S.; Genchi, G. Oxidative stress and neurodegeneration: The involvement of iron. BioMetals 2018, 31, 715–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Maras, J.S.; Das, S.; Sharma, S.; Sukriti, S.; Kumar, J.; Vyas, A.K.; Kumar, D.; Bhat, A.; Yadav, G.; Choudhary, M.C.; et al. Iron-Overload triggers ADAM-17 mediated inflammation in Severe Alcoholic Hepatitis. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 10264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Yamauchi, A.; Kamiyoshi, A.; Sakurai, T.; Miyazaki, H.; Hirano, E.; Lim, H.-S.; Kaku, T.; Shindo, T. Development of a mouse iron overload-induced liver injury model and evaluation of the beneficial effects of placenta extract on iron metabolism. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Ngim, C.F.; Lee, M.Y.; Othman, N.; Lim, S.M.; Ng, C.S.; Ramadas, A. Prevalence and Risk Factors for Cardiac and Liver Iron Overload in Adults with Thalassemia in Malaysia. Hemoglobin 2019, 43, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cavdar, Z.; Oktan, M.A.; Ural, C.; Calisir, M.; Kocak, A.; Heybeli, C.; Yildiz, S.; Arici, A.; Ellidokuz, H.; Celik, A.; et al. Renoprotective Effects of Alpha Lipoic Acid on Iron Overload-Induced Kidney Injury in Rats by Suppressing NADPH Oxidase 4 and p38 MAPK Signaling. Boil. Trace Element Res. 2019, 193, 483–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Moreno-Navarrete, J.M.; Ortega, F.J.; Rodríguez, A.; Latorre, J.; Becerril, S.; Sabater-Masdeu, M.; Ricart, W.; Frühbeck, G.; Fernández-Real, J.-M. HMOX1 as a marker of iron excess-induced adipose tissue dysfunction, affecting glucose uptake and respiratory capacity in human adipocytes. Diabetologia 2017, 60, 915–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Huang, J.; Jones, D.; Luo, B.; Sanderson, M.; Soto, J.; Abel, E.D.; Cooksey, R.C.; McClain, D. Iron Overload and Diabetes Risk: A Shift From Glucose to Fatty Acid Oxidation and Increased Hepatic Glucose Production in a Mouse Model of Hereditary Hemochromatosis. Diabetes 2010, 60, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Peltier, L.; Bendavid, C.; Cavey, T.; Island, M.-L.; Doyard, M.; Leroyer, P.; Allain, C.; De Tayrac, M.; Ropert, M.; Loreal, O.; et al. Iron excess upregulates SPNS2 mRNA levels but reduces sphingosine-1-phosphate export in human osteoblastic MG-63 cells. Osteoporos. Int. 2018, 29, 1905–1915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yook, J.-S.; Zhou, M.; Jaekwon, L.; Chung, S. Iron Deficiency Anemia (IDA) Promotes Visceral Obesity Due to Defective Adipose Tissue Browning (OR09-07-19). Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2019, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Wang, J.; Pantopoulos, K. Regulation of cellular iron metabolism. Biochem. J. 2011, 434, 365–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Gunshin, H.; MacKenzie, B.; Berger, U.V.; Gunshin, Y.; Romero, M.F.; Boron, W.; Nussberger, S.; Gollan, J.L.; Hediger, M.A. Cloning and characterization of a mammalian proton-coupled metal-ion transporter. Nature 1997, 388, 482–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Choi, J.; Masaratana, P.; Latunde-Dada, G.; Arno, M.; Simpson, R.; McKie, A. Duodenal Reductase Activity and Spleen Iron Stores Are Reduced and Erythropoiesis Is Abnormal in Dcytb Knockout Mice Exposed to Hypoxic Conditions. J. Nutr. 2012, 142, 1929–1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Wallander, M.L.; Leibold, E.A.; Eisenstein, R.S. Molecular control of vertebrate iron homeostasis by iron regulatory proteins. Biochim. et Biophys. Acta (BBA) - Bioenerg. 2006, 1763, 668–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Yilmaz, B.; Li, H. Gut Microbiota and Iron: The Crucial Actors in Health and Disease. Pharmaceuticals 2018, 11, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Cherayil, B.J. Iron and Immunity: Immunological Consequences of Iron Deficiency and Overload. Arch. Immunol. et Ther. Exp. 2010, 58, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Wallace, D.; Summerville, L.; Crampton, E.M.; Frazer, D.M.; Anderson, G.J.; Subramaniam, V.N. Combined deletion of Hfe and transferrin receptor 2 in mice leads to marked dysregulation of hepcidin and iron overload†. Hepatology 2009, 50, 1992–2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kroot, J.J.; Tjalsma, H.; Fleming, R.E.; Swinkels, D.W. Hepcidin in Human Iron Disorders: Diagnostic Implications. Clin. Chem. 2011, 57, 1650–1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Fraenkel, P. Anemia of Inflammation: A Review. Med. Clin. North. Am. 2016, 101, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Nam, H.; Wang, C.-Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, W.; Hojyo, S.; Fukada, T.; Knutson, M. ZIP14 and DMT1 in the liver, pancreas, and heart are differentially regulated by iron deficiency and overload: Implications for tissue iron uptake in iron-related disorders. Haematologica 2013, 98, 1049–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Anghel, L.; Radulescu, A.; Erhan, R.V. Structural aspects of human lactoferrin in the iron-binding process studied by molecular dynamics and small-angle neutron scattering. Eur. Phys. J. E 2018, 41, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Legrand, D. Overview of Lactoferrin as a Natural Immune Modulator. J. Pediatr. 2016, 173, S10–S15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. E Baggott, J.; Tamura, T. Homocysteine, Iron and Cardiovascular Disease: A Hypothesis. Nutrients 2015, 7, 1108–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Gulec, S.; Anderson, G.J.; Collins, J.F. Mechanistic and regulatory aspects of intestinal iron absorption. Am. J. Physiol. Liver Physiol. 2014, 307, G397–G409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Sangkhae, V.; Nemeth, E. Regulation of the Iron Homeostatic Hormone Hepcidin. Adv. Nutr. 2017, 8, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. González, A.; Galvez, N.; Martín, J.; Reyes, F.; Llamas, I.; Dominguez-Vera, J.M. Identification of the key excreted molecule by Lactobacillus fermentum related to host iron absorption. Food Chem. 2017, 228, 374–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Deschemin, J.-C.; Noordine, M.-L.; Remot, A.; Willemetz, A.; Afif, C.; Canonne-Hergaux, F.; Langella, P.; Karim, Z.; Vaulont, S.; Thomas, M.; et al. The microbiota shifts the iron sensing of intestinal cells. FASEB J. 2015, 30, 252–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Morais, M.; Menchaca-Diaz, J.; Liberatore, A.; Amâncio, O.; Silva, R.; Fagundes-Neto, U.; Koh, I. Iron-deficiency anemia increases intestinal bacterial translocation in rats. Crit. Care 2005, 9, P62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Saha, P.; Yeoh, B.S.; Singh, R.; Chandrasekar, B.; Vemula, P.K.; Haribabu, B.; Vijay-Kumar, M.; Jala, V.R. Gut Microbiota Conversion of Dietary Ellagic Acid into Bioactive Phytoceutical Urolithin A Inhibits Heme Peroxidases. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0156811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Reddy, B.S.; Pleasants, J.R.; Wostmann, B.S. Effect of Intestinal Microflora on Iron and Zinc Metabolism, and on Activities of Metalloenzymes in Rats. J. Nutr. 1972, 102, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Pereira, D.; Aslam, M.F.; Frazer, D.M.; Schmidt, A.; Walton, G.E.; McCartney, A.L.; Gibson, G.R.; Anderson, G.J.; Powell, J.J. Dietary iron depletion at weaning imprints low microbiome diversity and this is not recovered with oral nano Fe(III). Microbiologyopen 2014, 4, 12–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Muleviciene, A.; D’Amico, F.; Turroni, S.; Candela, M.; Jankauskiene, A. Iron deficiency anemia-related gut microbiota dysbiosis in infants and young children: A pilot study. Acta Microbiol. et Immunol. Hung. 2018, 65, 551–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Johnston, K.L.; Johnson, D.M.; Marks, J.; Srai, S.K.; Debnam, E.S.; Sharp, P.A. Non-haem iron transport in the rat proximal colon. Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 2006, 36, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Willer, E.D.M.; Lima, R.D.L.; Giugliano, L. In vitro adhesion and invasion inhibition of Shigella dysenteriae, Shigella flexneri and Shigella sonnei clinical strains by human milk proteins. BMC Microbiol. 2004, 4, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Young, V.B. The role of the microbiome in human health and disease: An introduction for clinicians. BMJ 2017, 356, j831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Valitutti, F.; Cucchiara, S.; Fasano, A. Celiac Disease and the Microbiome. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Segal, J.P.; Oke, S.; Hold, G.L.; Clark, S.; Faiz, O.; Hart, A.L. Systematic review: Ileoanal pouch microbiota in health and disease. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2017, 47, 466–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Skrypnik, K.; Suliburska, J. Association between the gut microbiota and mineral metabolism. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 98, 2449–2460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hill, C.; Guarner, F.; Reid, G.; Gibson, G.R.; Merenstein, D.J.; Pot, B.; Morelli, L.; Canani, R.B.; Flint, H.J.; Salminen, S.; et al. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014, 11, 506–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Laparra, J.M.; Olivares, M.; Sanz, Y. Oral administration of Bifidobacterium longum CECT 7347 ameliorates gliadin-induced alterations in liver iron mobilisation. Br. J. Nutr. 2013, 110, 1828–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Bering, S.; Suchdev, S.; Sjøltov, L.; Berggren, A.; Tetens, I.; Bukhave, K. A lactic acid-fermented oat gruel increases non-haem iron absorption from a phytate-rich meal in healthy women of childbearing age. Br. J. Nutr. 2006, 96, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Hoppe, M.; Önning, G.; Hulthen, L. Freeze-dried Lactobacillus plantarum 299v increases iron absorption in young females—Double isotope sequential single-blind studies in menstruating women. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0189141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hoppe, M.; Önning, G.; Berggren, A.; Hulthén, L. Probiotic strainLactobacillus plantarum299v increases iron absorption from an iron-supplemented fruit drink: A double-isotope cross-over single-blind study in women of reproductive age. Br. J. Nutr. 2015, 114, 1195–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA). Lactobacillus plantarum 299v and an increase of non-haem iron absorption: Evaluation of a health claim pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA J. 2016, 14. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sandberg, A.-S.; Önning, G.; Engström, N.; Scheers, N. Iron Supplements Containing Lactobacillus plantarum 299v Increase Ferric Iron and Up-regulate the Ferric Reductase DCYTB in Human Caco-2/HT29 MTX Co-Cultures. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Adiki, S.K.; Perla, C.K.; Saha, G.; Katakam, P.; Theendra, V. Enhancement in Iron Absorption on Intake of Chemometrically Optimized Ratio of Probiotic Strain Lactobacillus plantarum 299v with Iron Supplement Pearl Millet. Boil. Trace Element Res. 2018, 190, 150–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Skrypnik, K.; Bogdański, P.; Łoniewski, I.; Regula, J.; Suliburska, J. Effect of probiotic supplementation on liver function and lipid status in rats. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment. 2018, 17, 185–192. [Google Scholar]
  48. McGill, M. The past and present of serum aminotransferases and the future of liver injury biomarkers. EXCLI J. 2016, 15, 817–828. [Google Scholar]
  49. Skrypnik, K.; Bogdański, P.; Schmidt, M.; Suliburska, J. The Effect of Multispecies Probiotic Supplementation on Iron Status in Rats. Boil. Trace Element Res. 2019, 192, 234–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Kowdley, K.V. Iron, hemochromatosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2004, 127, S79–S86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, M.; Liu, R.; Liang, Y.; Yang, G.; Huang, Y.; Yu, C.; Sun, K.; Lai, Y.; Xia, Y. Iron overload correlates with serum liver fibrotic markers and liver dysfunction: Potential new methods to predict iron overload-related liver fibrosis in thalassemia patients. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2016, 5, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Sabico, S.; Al-Mashharawi, A.; Al-Daghri, N.M.; Yakout, S.M.; Alnaami, A.; Alokail, M.S.; McTernan, P.G. Effects of a multi-strain probiotic supplement for 12 weeks in circulating endotoxin levels and cardiometabolic profiles of medication naïve T2DM patients: A randomized clinical trial. J. Transl. Med. 2017, 15, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Nunomura, W.; Takakuwa, Y.; Higashi, T. Changes in serum concentration and mRNA level of rat C-reactive protein. Biochim. et Biophys. Acta (BBA) - Mol. Basis Dis. 1994, 1227, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mack, D.R.; Ahrne, S.; Hyde, L.; Wei, S.; A Hollingsworth, M. Extracellular MUC3 mucin secretion follows adherence of Lactobacillus strains to intestinal epithelial cells in vitro. Gut 2003, 52, 827–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Bergqvist, S.W.; Andlid, T.; Sandberg, A.-S. Lactic acid fermentation stimulated iron absorption by Caco-2 cells is associated with increased soluble iron content in carrot juice. Br. J. Nutr. 2006, 96. [Google Scholar]
  56. Bering, S.B.; Sjøltov, L.; Wrisberg, S.S.; Berggren, A.; Alenfall, J.; Jensen, M.; Højgaard, L.; Tetens, I.; Bukhave, K. Viable, lyophilized lactobacilli do not increase iron absorption from a lactic acid-fermented meal in healthy young women, and no iron absorption occurs in the distal intestine. Br. J. Nutr. 2007, 98, 991–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Petry, N.; Egli, I.; Chassard, C.; Lacroix, C.; Hurrell, R. Inulin modifies the bifidobacteria population, fecal lactate concentration, and fecal pH but does not influence iron absorption in women with low iron status. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2012, 96, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Suzuki, Y.; Kosaka, M.; Shindo, K.; Kawasumi, T.; Kimoto-Nira, H.; Suzuki, C. Identification of Antioxidants Produced byLactobacillus plantarum. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2013, 77, 1299–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Coffey, R.; Ganz, T. Erythroferrone. HemaSphere 2018, 2, e35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ganz, T. Erythropoietic regulators of iron metabolism. Free. Radic. Boil. Med. 2019, 133, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rodrigues, L.R.; Teixeira, J.A.; Schmitt, F.C.; Paulsson, M.; Månsson, H.L. Lactoferrin and Cancer Disease Prevention. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2008, 49, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Farnaud, S.; Evans, R.W. Lactoferrin—a multifunctional protein with antimicrobial properties. Mol. Immunol. 2003, 40, 395–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. García-Montoya, I.A.; Cendón, T.S.; Arévalo-Gallegos, S.; Rascón-Cruz, Q. Lactoferrin a multiple bioactive protein: An overview. Biochim. et Biophys. Acta (BBA) - Gen. Subj. 2012, 1820, 226–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Mirciov, C.; Wilkins, S.J.; Anderson, G.J.; Frazer, D.M. Food deprivation increases hepatic hepcidin expression and can overcome the effect of Hfe deletion in male mice. FASEB J. 2018, 32, 6079–6088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Troutt, J.S.; Rudling, M.; Persson, L.; Ståhle, L.; Angelin, B.; Butterfield, A.M.; E Schade, A.; Cao, G.; Konrad, R.J. Circulating Human Hepcidin-25 Concentrations Display a Diurnal Rhythm, Increase with Prolonged Fasting, and Are Reduced by Growth Hormone Administration. Clin. Chem. 2012, 58, 1225–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Sample Availability: Samples of the compounds are not available.
Molecules 25 01674 g001 550
Figure 1. Significant correlations between serum hepcidin and hepatic divalent metal transporter 1 (DMT1), serum hepcidin and hepatic transferrin receptor 1 (TfR1), and serum erythroferrone and TfR2.
Figure 1. Significant correlations between serum hepcidin and hepatic divalent metal transporter 1 (DMT1), serum hepcidin and hepatic transferrin receptor 1 (TfR1), and serum erythroferrone and TfR2.
Molecules 25 01674 g001
Table
Table 1. Serum Fe metabolism parameters.
Table 1. Serum Fe metabolism parameters.
GroupnHepcidin (ng/mL)p-ValueLactoferrin (pg/mL)p-ValueHomocystein (pmol/mL)p-ValueFerritin (pg/mL)p-ValueErythroferrone (ng/mL)p-Value
KK10692.25 ± 144.99KK vs. PA
0.8518		107.47 ± 25.27KK vs. PA
0.5660		39.46 ± 11.57KK vs. PA
0.7570		64.17 ± 3.70KK vs. PA
0.9172		0.98 ± 0.19KK vs. PA
0.3596
PA10659.60 ± 124.36KK vs. PB
0.4693		97.42 ± 23.41KK vs. PB
0.1670		35.99 ± 8.10KK vs. PB
0.2384		64.96 ± 4.95KK vs. PB
0.8428		1.08 ± 0.12KK vs. PB
0.1005
PB10620.40 ± 114.41PA vs. PB
0.7719		89.16 ± 11.52PA vs. PB
0.6472		31.38 ± 11.03PA vs. PB
0.5793		63.06 ± 3.69PA vs. PB
0.5751		1.14 ± 0.13PA vs. PB
0.7061
Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). KK, control group; PA, group with low dose of probiotic; PB, group with high dose of probiotic. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test was performed.
Table
Table 2. Fe transporter proteins in the liver.
Table 2. Fe transporter proteins in the liver.
GroupnDMT1 (ng/g)p-ValueTfR1 (µg/g)p-ValueTfR2 (ng/g)p-ValueZIP14 (ng/g)p-Value
KK1017.87 ± 5.60KK vs. PA
0.7391		56.95 ± 22.91KK vs. PA
0.9920		10.98 ± 2.86KK vs. PA
0.9628		14.83 ± 4.93KK vs. PA
0.9997
PA1020.11 ± 5.78KK vs. PB
0.9972		58.28 ± 24.27KK vs. PB
0.9881		11.32 ± 2.83KK vs. PB
0.9530		14.90 ± 4.88KK vs. PB
0.9869
PB1018.08 ± 6.69PA vs. PB
0.7410		55.25 ± 18.66PA vs. PB
0.9558		10.60 ± 2.76PA vs. PB
0.8254		14.40 ± 5.62PA vs. PB
0.9789
Data are presented as mean ± SD. DMT, divalent metal transporter 1; KK, control group; PA, group with low dose of probiotic; PB, group with high dose of probiotic; TfR1, transferrin receptor protein 1; TfR2, transferrin receptor protein 2; ZIP14, ZRT/IRT-like protein 14. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test was performed.
Table
Table 3. Significant (p < 0.05) correlations registered in the study.
Table 3. Significant (p < 0.05) correlations registered in the study.
Correlated Parametersrp-Value
HEPC–LTF0.500.01
HEPC–Ft0.470.023
DMT1–TfR 10.69<0.001
DMT1–ZIP14−0.500.044
TfR1–TfR 20.69<0.001
DMT1, divalent metal transporter 1; ErFe, erytroferrone; Ft, ferritin; HEPC, hepcidin; LTF, lactoferrin; TfR1, transferrin receptor protein 1; TfR2, transferrin receptor protein 2; ZIP14, ZRT/IRT-like protein 14. Pearson correlation test was performed.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Skrypnik, K.; Bogdański, P.; Sobieska, M.; Suliburska, J. Hepcidin and Erythroferrone Correlate with Hepatic Iron Transporters in Rats Supplemented with Multispecies Probiotics. Molecules 2020, 25, 1674. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/molecules25071674

AMA Style

Skrypnik K, Bogdański P, Sobieska M, Suliburska J. Hepcidin and Erythroferrone Correlate with Hepatic Iron Transporters in Rats Supplemented with Multispecies Probiotics. Molecules. 2020; 25(7):1674. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/molecules25071674

Chicago/Turabian Style

Skrypnik, Katarzyna, Paweł Bogdański, Magdalena Sobieska, and Joanna Suliburska. 2020. "Hepcidin and Erythroferrone Correlate with Hepatic Iron Transporters in Rats Supplemented with Multispecies Probiotics" Molecules 25, no. 7: 1674. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/molecules25071674

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop