Effect of dietary fatty acids on LDL binding

Effects of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and other lipids: a review

In this exploratory, hypothesis-generating literature review, we evaluated potentially differential effects of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TG), and non-HDL-C in published studies of ω-3 fatty acid supplementation or prescription ω-3 fatty acid ethyl esters. Placebo-adjusted changes in mean lipid parameters were compared in randomized, controlled trials in subjects treated for ≥ 4 weeks with DHA or EPA. Of 22 studies identified, 6 compared DHA with EPA directly, 12 studied DHA alone (including 14 DHA-treated groups), and 4 examined EPA alone. In studies directly comparing EPA with DHA, a net increase in LDL-C of 3.3% was observed with DHA (DHA: +2.6%; EPA: -0.7%). In such head-to-head comparative studies, DHA treatment was associated with a net decrease in TG by 6.8% (DHA: -22.4%; EPA: -15.6%); a net increase in non-HDL-C by 1.7% (DHA: -1.2%; EPA -2.9%); and a net increase in HDL-C by 5.9% (DHA: +7.3%; EPA: +1.4%). Increases in LDL-C were also observed in 71% of DHA-alone groups [with demonstrated statistical significance (P < .05) in 67% (8 of 12) DHA-alone studies] but not in any EPA-alone studies. Changes in LDL-C significantly correlated with baseline TG for DHA-treated groups. The range of HDL-C increases documented in DHA-alone vs EPA-alone studies further supports the fact that HDL-C is increased more substantially by DHA than EPA. In total, these findings suggest that DHA-containing supplements or therapies were associated with more significant increases in LDL-C and HDL-C than were EPA-containing supplements or therapies. Future prospective, randomized trials are warranted to confirm these preliminary findings, determine the potential effects of these fatty acids on other clinical outcomes, and evaluate the generalizability of the data to larger and more heterogeneous patient populations.

High fat, high cholesterol diets alter low density lipoprotein size and binding affinity in monkeys

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of various dietary fats on low density lipoprotein (LDL) binding in an in vitro system where receptor number is not regulated. Cynomolgus monkeys were fed diets containing 37% of energy from fat, with various degrees of saturation, and 0.4 mg/kcal cholesterol or low-fat (13% of energy), low cholesterol (0.03 mg/kcal) chow. Plasma LDL was isolated after 16 weeks. The fatty acid composition of LDL showed enrichment corresponding to the dietary fats consumed, and the high fat, high cholesterol diets produced marked hypercholesterolemia compared to chow feeding. Of those fed the high fat diets, monkeys fed the fish oil diet had the highest LDL cholesterol concentrations, 13.25 +/- 0.77 mmol/l, while those fed the safflower oil diet had the lowest, 7.51 +/- 3.31. LDL from chow fed monkeys had the lowest binding affinity; the Kd was 26.2 +/- 8.7 microg/ml, nearly twice that of the high fat diets (P = 0.003). No significant differences in binding were found between the different high fat diets, although there was a trend toward lower affinity in the diets enriched in polyunsaturated fat. LDL size was affected by diet with chow fed monkeys having the smallest average LDL, 259.3 +/- 1.7 A compared to the other groups (P = 0.03). Monkeys fed the fish oil diet tended to have smaller LDL, but this was not significantly different from the other high fat diets. Binding affinity was correlated with LDL size, r = 0.54, P < 0.01. LDL composition, as measured by apo B/cholesterol ratio, was altered by feeding a high fat, high cholesterol diet. The ratio was reduced in the LDL samples from monkeys fed the high fat diets compared to those fed chow, but this ratio was not significantly correlated with binding. Thus, it appears that increasing dietary fat and cholesterol intake increases LDL size and binding affinity, such that LDL metabolism may be altered independently from effects on receptor number; the type of dietary fat does not seem to influence this process when fat and cholesterol content is very high.

Fatty acid modification of membrane fluidity in Chinese hamster ovary (TR715-19) cells

Dietary saturated fatty acids, especially lauric (12:0), myristic (14:0) and palmitic (16:0) acids, which are hypercholesterolemic, influence cell membrane fatty acid composition and affect LDL receptor function. When membrane phospholipid fatty acids in Chinese hamster ovary cells, containing the human LDL receptor, were modified (Hannah J. S. et al., 1995 Metabolism 44, 1428-1434), LDL receptor function was affected, but correlations with DPH-determined membrane fluidity were weak. The role of fluidity in various membrane domains with respect to the LDL receptor is examined here. Membrane fluidity was assessed by measuring steady-state fluorescence polarization of diphenylhexatriene (DPH) and its polar propionic acid (DPH-PA) and trimethylammonium (TMA-DPH) derivatives from 38 to 4 degrees C in fatty acid modified Chinese hamster ovary cells. Fatty acid changes modulated mid-bilayer fluidity as determined with DPH, but fluidity in phospholipid headgroup domains, assessed with DPH-PA and TMA-DPH, was independent of fatty acyl composition. The DPH fluidity was related to membrane unsaturation (P < 0.02), oleate contents (P < 0.009) in particular, but inversely related (P < 0.0002) to the longer chain (> or = 20 C atoms) unsaturated fatty acids with from four to six double bonds. The LDL binding was independent of fluidity, but there were weak relations between LDL internalization and DPH-PA anisotropy and between LDL degradation and TMA-DPH anisotropy. It was concluded that LDL binding was not related to mid-bilayer fluidity, but the results with the polar probes suggest a role of fluidity in modulating vertical displacement of the LDL/LDL receptor complex across the plasma membrane.

Eicosapentaenoic acid is primarily responsible for hypotriglyceridemic effect of fish oil in humans

The aim of this study was to determine whether eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) or docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), or both, were responsible for the triglyceride (TG)-lowering effects of fish oil. EPA (91% pure) and DHA (83% pure), a fish oil concentrate (FOC; 41% EPA and 23% DHA) and an olive oil (OO) placebo (all ethyl esters) were tested. A total of 49 normolipidemic subjects participated. Each subject was given placebo for 2-3 wk and one of the n-3 supplements for 3 wk in randomized, blinded trials. The target n-3 fatty acid (FA) intake was 3 g/day in all studies. Blood samples were drawn twice at the end of each supplementation phase and analyzed for lipids, lipoproteins, and phospholipid FA composition. In all groups, the phospholipid FA composition changed to reflect the n-3 FA given. On DHA supplementation, EPA levels increased to a small but significant extent, suggesting that some retroconversion may have occurred. EPA supplementation did not raise DHA levels, however. FOC and EPA produced significant decreases in both TG and very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol (C) levels (P < 0.01) and increases in low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels (P < 0.05). DHA supplementation did not affect cholesterol, triglyceride, VLDL, LDL, or high density lipoprotein (HDL) levels, but it did cause a significant increase in the HDL2/HDL3 cholesterol ratio. We conclude that EPA appears to be primarily responsible for TG-lowering (and LDL-C raising) effects of fish oil.

In vitro regulation of low-density lipoprotein receptor interaction by fatty acids

Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor binding is the initial step in receptor-mediated clearance. Dietary fat composition is known to affect LDL clearance, but the mechanism of the effect is unknown. We have examined the effects of altered membrane fatty acid composition, as might occur when specific dietary fats are consumed, on LDL binding using a Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) line that constitutively expresses the human LDL receptor. Binding of pooled human LDL to its receptor was compared in cells enriched with various fatty acids. Binding affinity was greater (lower Kd) for cells grown in 16:0-, 18:0-, or 18:1-enriched media than for those grown in 18:2 (P < .0001). The apparent receptor number (Bmax) was lower for cells enriched in saturated fatty acids and 18:1. Fluidity was assessed by measuring diphenylhexatriene (DPH) fluorescence anisotropy (rs). Cells enriched in 18:1 or 18:2 were the most fluid (P < .003). The correlation between binding and fluidity (r = .24, P = .27) was weak and did not appear to explain the effects of fatty acid modification on LDL receptor binding. Thus, it appears that cellular enrichment in 16:0, 18:0, and 18:1 increases binding affinity by affecting properties other than membrane fluidity. Changes in Bmax may also contribute to the observed differences in LDL binding.