Article

Comparison between stearoyl-CoA desaturase expression in milk somatic cells and in mammary tissue of lactating dairy cows.

Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
J Anim Physiol a Anim Nutr (Impact Factor: 1.25). 02/2012; DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2012.01278.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Stearoyl-CoA desaturase (SCD) is an important enzyme in the bovine mammary gland, where it inserts a cis-double bond at the Δ9 position in a wide range of fatty acids. Investigating SCD expression in the bovine mammary gland generally requires invasive biopsy to obtain mammary tissue. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of milk somatic cells as a non-invasive alternative to biopsy for measuring mammary SCD expression in dairy cows. Both milk somatic cells and mammary tissue were collected from 14 Holstein-Friesian cows and used for analysis of SCD expression by real-time PCR. The SCD5 mRNA levels in mammary tissue compared with SCD1 were low, and for several milk somatic cell samples, SCD5 expression was even below the limit of detection. A significant relationship was found between SCD1 expression in milk somatic cells and in mammary tissue. In addition, SCD1 expression in milk somatic cells was significantly related to Δ9-desaturase indices in milk, which are commonly used as an indicator of SCD1 activity within the mammary gland. Our study showed that milk somatic cells can be used as a source of mRNA to study SCD1 expression in dairy cows, offering a non-invasive alternative to mammary tissue samples obtained by biopsy.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
84 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Stearoyl-CoA desaturase (SCD) in the bovine mammary gland introduces a cis-double bond at the Δ9 position in a wide range of fatty acids (FA). Several long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) inhibit expression of SCD, but information on the effect of short-chain fatty acids on mammary SCD expression is scarce. We used a bovine mammary cell line (MAC-T) to assess the effect of acetic acid (Ac) and β-hydroxybutyric acid (BHBA) in comparison with the effect of various long-chain fatty acids on the mRNA expression of the lipogenic enzymes SCD, acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACACA), fatty acid synthase (FASN) and their associated gene regulatory proteins sterol regulatory element binding transcription factor 1 (SREBF1), insulin-induced gene 1 protein (INSIG1) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARA)and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta (PPARD) by quantitative real-time PCR. MAC-T cells were treated for 12 h without FA additions (CON) or with either 5 mM Ac, 5 mM BHBA, a combination of 5 mM Ac + 5 mM BHBA, 100 μM C16:0, 100 μM C18:0, 100 μM C18:1 cis-9, 100 μM C18:1 trans-11, 100 μM C18:2 cis-9,12 or 100 μM C18:3 cis-9,12,15. Compared with control, mRNA expression of SCD1 was increased by Ac (+61%) and reduced by C18:1 cis-9 (-61%), C18:2 cis-9,12 (-84%) and C18:3 cis-9,12,15 (-88%). In contrast to native bovine mammary gland tissue, MAC-T cells did not express SCD5. Expression of ACACA was increased by Ac (+44%) and reduced by C18:2 cis-9,12 (-48%) and C18:3 cis-9,12,15 (-49%). Compared with control, FASN expression was not significantly affected by the treatments. The mRNA level of SREBF1 was not affected by Ac or BHBA, but was reduced by C18:1 cis-9 (-44%), C18:1 trans-11 (-42%), C18:2 cis-9,12 (-62%) and C18:3 cis-9,12,15 (-68%) compared with control. Expression of INSIG1 was downregulated by C18:0 (-37%), C18:1 cis-9 (-63%), C18:1 trans-11 (-53%), C18:2 cis-9,12 (-81%) and C18:3 cis-9,12,15 (-91%). Both PPARA and PPARD expression were not significantly affected by the treatments. Our results show that Ac upregulated mRNA expression of SCD1 and ACACA in MAC-T cells. The opposite effect of the PUFA C18:2 cis-9,12 and C18:3 cis-9,12,15 on the these genes and the failure of Ac to mimic the PUFA-inhibited SREBF1 and INSIG1 mRNA expression, suggest that Ac can stimulate mammary lipogenesis via a transcriptional regulatory mechanism different from PUFA.
    animal 04/2013; · 1.65 Impact Factor