Effects of Feeding Bile Acids and a Bile Acid Sequestrant on Hepatic Bile Acid Composition in Mice
Youcai Zhang,Curtis D. Klaassen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1194/jlr.m007641
IF: 6.676
2010-01-01
Journal of Lipid Research
Abstract:An improved ultra performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC/MS/MS) method was established for the simultaneous analysis of various bile acids (BA) and applied to investigate liver BA content in C57BL/6 mice fed 1% cholic acid (CA), 0.3% deoxycholic acid (DCA), 0.3% chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA), 0.3% lithocholic acid (LCA), 3% ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), or 2% cholestyramine (resin). Results indicate that mice have a remarkable ability to maintain liver BA concentrations. The BA profiles in mouse livers were similar between CA and DCA feedings, as well as between CDCA and LCA feedings. The mRNA expression of Cytochrome P450 7a1 (Cyp7a1) was suppressed by all BA feedings, whereas Cyp7b1 was suppressed only by CA and UDCA feedings. Gender differences in liver BA composition were observed after feeding CA, DCA, CDCA, and LCA, but they were not prominent after feeding UDCA. Sulfation of CA and CDCA was found at the 7-OH position, and it was increased by feeding CA or CDCA more in male than female mice. In contrast, sulfation of LCA and taurolithocholic acid (TLCA) was female-predominant, and it was increased by feeding UDCA and LCA. In summary, the present systematic study on BA metabolism in mice will aid in interpreting BA-mediated gene regulation and hepatotoxicity. An improved ultra performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC/MS/MS) method was established for the simultaneous analysis of various bile acids (BA) and applied to investigate liver BA content in C57BL/6 mice fed 1% cholic acid (CA), 0.3% deoxycholic acid (DCA), 0.3% chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA), 0.3% lithocholic acid (LCA), 3% ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), or 2% cholestyramine (resin). Results indicate that mice have a remarkable ability to maintain liver BA concentrations. The BA profiles in mouse livers were similar between CA and DCA feedings, as well as between CDCA and LCA feedings. The mRNA expression of Cytochrome P450 7a1 (Cyp7a1) was suppressed by all BA feedings, whereas Cyp7b1 was suppressed only by CA and UDCA feedings. Gender differences in liver BA composition were observed after feeding CA, DCA, CDCA, and LCA, but they were not prominent after feeding UDCA. Sulfation of CA and CDCA was found at the 7-OH position, and it was increased by feeding CA or CDCA more in male than female mice. In contrast, sulfation of LCA and taurolithocholic acid (TLCA) was female-predominant, and it was increased by feeding UDCA and LCA. In summary, the present systematic study on BA metabolism in mice will aid in interpreting BA-mediated gene regulation and hepatotoxicity. Bile acids (BA) are synthesized from cholesterol in livers via two major pathways, namely, the classic and alternative pathways (1Chiang J.Y. Bile acid regulation of gene expression: roles of nuclear hormone receptors.Endocr. Rev. 2002; 23: 443-463Crossref PubMed Scopus (378) Google Scholar). BA structures are shown in Fig. 1. Cyp7a1 is the rate-limiting enzyme in the classic pathway, which results in the formation of cholic acid (CA) and chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA). The alternative pathway is initiated by mitochondrial Cyp27a1 and followed by Cyp7b1 to produce chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA). Both CA and CDCA are primary BAs in humans and rodents. Rodent livers can hydroxylate CDCA at the 6β-position to form α-muricholic acid (αMCA), which can be further converted to βMCA by epimerization of its 7α-OH to 7β-OH (2Botham K.M. Boyd G.S. The metabolism of chenodeoxycholic acid to beta-muricholic acid in rat liver.Eur. J. Biochem. 1983; 134: 191-196Crossref PubMed Scopus (52) Google Scholar). Therefore, α- and β-MCA are also primary BAs in rodents.BAs are subject to multiple biotransformations during their enterohepatic circulation (3Hofmann A.F. Hagey L.R. Bile acids: chemistry, pathochemistry, biology, pathobiology, and therapeutics.Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2008; 65: 2461-2483Crossref PubMed Scopus (609) Google Scholar). In liver, BAs undergo conjugation with taurine, glycine, and glucuronic acid on the side chain and conjugation with sulfate, glucuronic acid, and N-acetylglucosamine on the hydroxyl groups of the steroid nucleus (4Hofmann A.F. Sjovall J. Kurz G. Radominska A. Schteingart C.D. Tint G.S. Vlahcevic Z.R. Setchell K.D. A proposed nomenclature for bile acids.J. Lipid Res. 1992; 33: 599-604Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar, 5Deo A.K. Bandiera S.M. Identification of human hepatic cytochrome p450 enzymes involved in the biotransformation of cholic and chenodeoxycholic acid.Drug Metab. Dispos. 2008; 36: 1983-1991Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar). In the intestine, bacterial enzymes are capable of deconjugation, dehydroxylation at C-7, epimerization, and oxidation of BAs. Gender differences in BA metabolism have been reported in several species. For example, male rat livers have a relatively higher capacity to convert CDCA to βMCA (6Yousef I.M. Magnusson R. Price V.M. Fisher M.M. Bile acid metabolism in mammals. V. Studies on the sex difference in the response of the isolated perfused rat liver to chenodeoxycholic acid.Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 1973; 51: 418-423Crossref PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar). In contrast, isolated perfused livers of female rats convert more DCA to taurocholic acid (TCA) than male rats (7Fisher M.M. Price V.M. Magnusson R.J. Yousef I.M. Bile acid metabolism in mammals. VII. Studies on sex differences in deoxycholic acid metabolism in isolated perfused rat liver.Lipids. 1974; 9: 786-794Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar). Compared with male mice, female mice have a much higher capacity to sulfate lithocholic acid (LCA) in their livers (8Kitada H. Miyata M. Nakamura T. Tozawa A. Honma W. Shimada M. Nagata K. Sinal C.J. Guo G.L. Gonzalez F.J. et al.Protective role of hydroxysteroid sulfotransferase in lithocholic acid-induced liver toxicity.J. Biol. Chem. 2003; 278: 17838-17844Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (129) Google Scholar).Recently, various BA-supplemented diets have been fed to rodents to investigate hepatic gene regulation, BA hepatotoxicity, and the potential therapeutic use of BAs (9Alpini G. Glaser S.S. Ueno Y. Rodgers R. Phinizy J.L. Francis H. Baiocchi L. Holcomb L.A. Caligiuri A. LeSage G.D. Bile acid feeding induces cholangiocyte proliferation and secretion: evidence for bile acid-regulated ductal secretion.Gastroenterology. 1999; 116: 179-186Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (142) Google Scholar, 10Hofmann A.F. Bile acids: the good, the bad, and the ugly.News Physiol. Sci. 1999; 14: 24-29PubMed Google Scholar, 11Goodwin B. Kliewer S.A. Nuclear receptors. I. Nuclear receptors and bile acid homeostasis.Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 2002; 282: G926-G931Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar, 12Delzenne N.M. Calderon P.B. Taper H.S. Roberfroid M.B. Comparative hepatotoxicity of cholic acid, deoxycholic acid and lithocholic acid in the rat: in vivo and in vitro studies.Toxicol. Lett. 1992; 61: 291-304Crossref PubMed Scopus (84) Google Scholar). Individual BAs vary markedly in their pathological and physiological responses in vivo. Therefore, it is important to know the effect of feeding BAs on individual BA composition and concentrations. This lab has developed a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method to quantify the major BAs in mice (13Alnouti Y. Csanaky I.L. Klaassen C.D. Quantitative-profiling of bile acids and their conjugates in mouse liver, bile, plasma, and urine using LC-MS/MS.J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2008; 873: 209-217Crossref PubMed Scopus (204) Google Scholar). In the present study, the LC-MS/MS method was improved so that it can simultaneously quantify various hydroxy-oxo-BAs. This method was applied to quantify individual BA concentrations in livers of male and female C57BL/6 mice subjected to a diet containing either a primary BA (CA or CDCA), a secondary BA (DCA or LCA), a therapeutic BA (UDCA), or a BA binding resin (cholestyramine). The purpose of this study is to investigate BA metabolism and synthesis, along with potential gender differences in mice fed various BA-supplemented diets.EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDUREChemicals and reagentsIn the present study, the BAs were named according to previous literature (4Hofmann A.F. Sjovall J. Kurz G. Radominska A. Schteingart C.D. Tint G.S. Vlahcevic Z.R. Setchell K.D. A proposed nomenclature for bile acids.J. Lipid Res. 1992; 33: 599-604Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar, 14Hagio M. Matsumoto M. Fukushima M. Hara H. Ishizuka S. Improved analysis of bile acids in tissues and intestinal contents of rats using LC/ESI-MS.J. Lipid Res. 2009; 50: 173-180Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (122) Google Scholar). Tauromurideoxycholic acid (TMDCA) and 7α-dihydroxy-3-oxo-5β–cholan-24-oic acid (3-dehydroCDCA) were kind gifts from Dr. Alan F. Hofmann (University of California, San Diego). Glycochenodeoxycholic-2,2,4,4-d4 acid (2H4-GCDCA) and chenodeoxycholic-2,2,4,4-d4 acid (2H4-CDCA) were purchased from C/D/N Isotopes, Inc. (Pointe-Claire, Quebec, Canada). Lithocholic acid (LCA), sodium taurolithocholate, lithocholic acid sulfate (LCAS) disodium salt hydrate, taurolithocholic acid sulfate (TLCAS) disodium salt, cholic acid (CA), glycocholic acid (GCA), deoxycholic acid (DCA), sodium glycodeoxycholate, sodium taurodeoxycholate hydrate, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), sodium tauroursodeoxycholate, chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA), sodium glycochenodeoxycholate, sodium taurochenodeoxycholate and cholestyramine (resin) were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO). Glycoursodeoxycholic acid (GUDCA), glycolithocholic acid (GLCA), hyodeoxycholic acid (HDCA), glycohyodeoxycholic acid (GHDCA), taurohyodeoxycholic acid (THDCA), taurocholic acid (TCA), 3α,12α-dihydroxy-7-oxo-5β–cholan-24-oic acid (7-oxoDCA), 3-oxo-5β–cholan-24-oic acid (dehydroLCA), α-muricholic acid (αMCA), tauro-α-muricholic acid (TαMCA), β-muricholic acid (βMCA), tauro-β-muricholic acid (TβMCA), hyocholic (HCA), tauro-hyocholic acid (THCA), murideoxycholic acid (MDCA), 3β,12α-dihydroxy-5β–cholan-24-oic acid (isoDCA), 7α,12α-dihydroxy-5β–cholan-24-oic acid (3-DCA), 3β-hydroxy-5β–cholan-24-oic acid (isoLCA), 3α-hydroxy-5α–cholan-24-oic acid (alloLCA), 3α-hydroxy-6-oxo-5α–cholan-24-oic acid (6-oxo-alloLCA), 3α-hydroxy-6-oxo-5β–cholan-24-oic acid (6-oxoLCA), 3α-hydroxy-7-oxo-5β–cholan-24-oic acid (7-oxoLCA), 3α-hydroxy-12-oxo-5β–cholan-24-oic acid (12-oxoLCA), 7α,12α-dihydroxy-3-oxo-5β–cholan-24-oic acid (3-dehydroCA), and 3α,7α-dihydroxy-12-oxo-5β–cholan-24-oic acid (12-oxoCDCA) were purchased from Steraloids, Inc. (Newport, RI). CDCA-3-glucuronide and CDCA-24-glucuronide, CA-24-glucuronide, LCA-3-glucuronide, LCA-24-glucuronide, DCA-3-glucuronide, HDCA-6-glucuronide, and HDCA-24-glucuronide were kindly provided by Dr. Oliver Barbier (Laval University, Québec, Canada). All other chemicals, unless indicated, were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO). Tauro-ω-muricholic acid (TωMCA), cholic acid 3-sulfate (CA3S), cholic acid 7-sulfate (CA7S), cholic acid 12-sulfate (CA12S), taurocholic acid 3-sulfate (TCA3S), chenodeoxycholic acid 3-sulfate (CDCA3S), tauro- or glyco-chenodeoxycholic acid 3-sulfate (TCDCA3S, GCDCA3S), deoxycholic acid 3-sulfate (DCA3S), tauro- or glyco-deoxycholic acid 3-sulfate (TDCA3S, GDCA3S), and glycolithocholic acid sulfate (GLCAS) were synthesized according to previous methods with small modifications (supplementary information).Liver BA extraction2H4-GCDCA (40 µg/ml) and 2H4-CDCA (20 µg/ml) were used as internal standards (IS). Approximately 120 mg of liver was homogenized in 5 vol of H2O. An amount of 600 µl of liver homogenate was spiked with 10 µl of ISs, mixed, and equilibrated on ice for 10 min. An amount of 3 ml of ice-cold alkaline acetonitrile (5% ammonia in acetonitrile) was added to the homogenate, which was then vortexed vigorously and shaken continuously for 1 h at room temperature. The mixture was centrifuged at 12,000 g for 10 min, and the supernatant was collected. The pellet was resuspended in 1 ml of methanol, sonicated for 5 min, and centrifuged at 12,000 g for 10 min. The two supernatants obtained were combined, evaporated under vacuum, and reconstituted in 100 µl of 50% methanol. The suspension was transferred into a 0.2 µm Costar Spin-X HPLC microcentrifuge filter (purchased from Corning Inc., Corning, NY), and centrifuged at 20,000 g for 10 min. The supernatant was then ready for injection.BA quantificationLiquid chromatographic and mass spectrometric conditions are described in the supplementary information (supplementary Table I and Fig. I). For preparation of standard stock solutions, 10 mg/ml BAs and ISs were dissolved in methanol. Because BA sulfates were synthesized without further purification, their stock solutions were prepared separately. IS stock solution was diluted with 50% MeOH to a final concentration of 40 µg/ml for 2H4-GCDCA and 20 µg/ml for 2H4-CDCA. BA stock solutions were diluted with 50% MeOH and spiked with 10 µl of ISs to construct standard curves between 5 and 50,000 ng/ml. The final concentration of 2H4-G-CDCA and 2H4-CDCA was 4 and 2 µg/ml, respectively. The assignment of target BAs in the UPLC profile was conducted by comparing their retention behavior and molecular mass spectra with the available BA reference standards. Quantification was performed via peak area ratios (analyte versus IS) by linear-weighted (1/x2) least-squares calibration curves within a range of working standard concentrations. As insufficient TωMCA and ωMCA were available, they were quantified relatively by referring to TαMCA and αMCA, respectively.Animals and treatmentsEight-week-old adult male and female C57BL/6 mice were purchased from Charles River Laboratories (Wilmington, MA). All mice were fed Teklad Rodent Diet #8604 (Harlan Laboratories, Madison, WI) ad libitum and housed according to American Animal Association laboratory animal care guidance. The control diet was prepared by grinding Harlan Teklad Rodent Diet #8064 (Harlan Laboratories). To prepare BA-supplemented diets, BAs were first ground with a small amount of control diet using a mortar and pestle, and then mixed with a large amount of control diet in a Hobart food mixer (Hobart Corporation, Troy, OH). Cholestyramine-supplemented diet (2% resin by weight of diet) was prepared using the same method as BA-supplemented diets. During a preliminary study, mice were fed diets supplemented with different concentrations (0.01%, 0.1%, 0.3%, and 3% by weight of diet) of individual BAs. Concentrations that were nonlethal were selected for the present study. Individually housed C57BL/6 mice (n = 5/gender/group) were fed a control diet or a diet supplemented with 1% CA, 0.3% DCA, 0.3% CDCA, 0.3% LCA, 3% UDCA, or 2% resin for seven days. Mice were anesthetized between 8:00 AM and 12:00 AM on day 7, and gallbladders were carefully removed. Livers were then harvested, washed, frozen in liquid nitrogen, and stored at −80°C until analysis.Total RNA isolationTotal RNA was isolated using RNA-Bee reagent (Tel-Test Inc., Friendswood, TX) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Total RNA concentrations were quantified spectrophotometrically at 260 nm. One microgram per microliter solutions were prepared from the stock RNA solutions by dilution in diethyl pyrocarbonate-treated deionized water. Integrity of RNA samples was determined by formaldehyde-agarose gel electrophoresis with visualization by ethidium bromide fluorescence under UV light.Multiplex suspension arrayLiver mRNA was quantified by multiplex suspension array (Panomics-Affymetrix, Inc., Fremont, CA). Individual gene accession numbers can be accessed at www.panomics.com. Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (Gapdh) was used as the loading control. The detailed method was described previously (15Yeager R.L. Reisman S.A. Aleksunes L.M. Klaassen C.D. Introducing the "TCDD-inducible AhR-Nrf2 gene battery.".Toxicol. Sci. 2009; 111: 238-246Crossref PubMed Scopus (211) Google Scholar). The mRNA data are presented as relative light units (RLU) normalized to Gapdh mRNA.Statistical analysisBars represent Mean ± SEM (n = 5). Differences between mean values were tested for statistical significance (P < 0.05) by the two-tailed Student's t-test.RESULTSExtraction of BAs from mouse liversDuring preliminary experiments, different BA extraction methods were compared. In previous BA analyses, livers were either homogenized in 50% methanol (13Alnouti Y. Csanaky I.L. Klaassen C.D. Quantitative-profiling of bile acids and their conjugates in mouse liver, bile, plasma, and urine using LC-MS/MS.J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2008; 873: 209-217Crossref PubMed Scopus (204) Google Scholar) or ground as frozen tissue (14Hagio M. Matsumoto M. Fukushima M. Hara H. Ishizuka S. Improved analysis of bile acids in tissues and intestinal contents of rats using LC/ESI-MS.J. Lipid Res. 2009; 50: 173-180Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (122) Google Scholar). In the present study, livers were homogenized in five vol of water to obtain a homogenate that was easily transferred with a pipette. To optimize BA extraction, liver homogenates were divided into small portions, each of which was spiked with or without a mixture of ISs and BA standards. BAs were then extracted with various solvents (ethanol, methanol, and acetonitrile) at various temperatures (25°C, 37°C, 60°C, and 100°C) and pHs (7Fisher M.M. Price V.M. Magnusson R.J. Yousef I.M. Bile acid metabolism in mammals. VII. Studies on sex differences in deoxycholic acid metabolism in isolated perfused rat liver.Lipids. 1974; 9: 786-794Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar, 9Alpini G. Glaser S.S. Ueno Y. Rodgers R. Phinizy J.L. Francis H. Baiocchi L. Holcomb L.A. Caligiuri A. LeSage G.D. Bile acid feeding induces cholangiocyte proliferation and secretion: evidence for bile acid-regulated ductal secretion.Gastroenterology. 1999; 116: 179-186Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (142) Google Scholar, 11Goodwin B. Kliewer S.A. Nuclear receptors. I. Nuclear receptors and bile acid homeostasis.Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 2002; 282: G926-G931Crossref PubMed Scopus (55) Google Scholar, and 12Delzenne N.M. Calderon P.B. Taper H.S. Roberfroid M.B. Comparative hepatotoxicity of cholic acid, deoxycholic acid and lithocholic acid in the rat: in vivo and in vitro studies.Toxicol. Lett. 1992; 61: 291-304Crossref PubMed Scopus (84) Google Scholar). The extraction recoveries were determined by the ratio of the peak area of recovered BAs compared with the corresponding peak area of BA standards in neat solution (50% methanol). Finally, a two-step extraction using a combination of alkaline acetonitrile and methanol was found to be sufficient for maximum recovery of the BAs. BA standards (unconjugated BAs, oxo-BAs, taurine-, glycine-, and sulfate-conjugated BAs) were stable during this extraction procedure. The recovery ratios of the exogenous standards calculated from each raw peak area were from 75% to 90%. The recovery ratios of two ISs were from 75% to 85%. The recovery extent of BA standards and the ISs was consistent and reproducible.Validation of BA quantificationTo optimize the chromatographic conditions, we compared the method used by Alnouti et al. (13Alnouti Y. Csanaky I.L. Klaassen C.D. Quantitative-profiling of bile acids and their conjugates in mouse liver, bile, plasma, and urine using LC-MS/MS.J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2008; 873: 209-217Crossref PubMed Scopus (204) Google Scholar) with that by Hagio et al. (14Hagio M. Matsumoto M. Fukushima M. Hara H. Ishizuka S. Improved analysis of bile acids in tissues and intestinal contents of rats using LC/ESI-MS.J. Lipid Res. 2009; 50: 173-180Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (122) Google Scholar). The Hagio method resulted in a better separation between ω-, α-, and β-MCA, whereas the signal intensity was only about 50% of the Alnouti method. Compared with the Alnouti method, more peaks were found in the chromatograph window for CDCA using the Hagio method (data not shown). Therefore, chromatographic conditions similar to Hagio's (14Hagio M. Matsumoto M. Fukushima M. Hara H. Ishizuka S. Improved analysis of bile acids in tissues and intestinal contents of rats using LC/ESI-MS.J. Lipid Res. 2009; 50: 173-180Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (122) Google Scholar) were used in the present study to separate all BA standards in less than 28 min. The intraday and interday accuracy and precision were determined according to a previous method (13Alnouti Y. Csanaky I.L. Klaassen C.D. Quantitative-profiling of bile acids and their conjugates in mouse liver, bile, plasma, and urine using LC-MS/MS.J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2008; 873: 209-217Crossref PubMed Scopus (204) Google Scholar); their relative standard deviations were below 15% for all BA standards (data not shown). All standard curves were constructed using a 1/concentration2 weighted quadratic regression, and the correlation coefficient (r2) for all BAs was above 0.99. The limit of detection (signal/noise ratio = 3) for the various BAs was in the range of 5–10 ng/ml.Concentrations of BAs in livers of mice fed BAsUsing this method, 36 BAs were quantified in the livers of mice fed various BAs or BA sequestrants (Table 1 and supplementary figures). To simplify, we only list BA changes in livers of male mice after BA feedings. The predominant BAs in control mouse liver were TCA (86.1 ± 18.5 nmol/g) and CA (4.7 ± 0.9), TβMCA (34.2 ± 8.8) and βMCA (35.1 ± 5.0), and TωMCA (18.1 ± 4.5) and ωMCA (11.8 ± 2.1). The major oxo-BAs in control mouse liver were 7-oxoDCA (5.1 ± 1.0) and 12-oxoCDCA (12.1 ± 1.8). In livers of mice fed CA, DCA, CDCA, LCA, or UDCA, the taurine conjugates of the fed BAs became the predominant BAs. This indicates that the fed BAs were absorbed from the intestine and delivered in portal blood to the liver, where a majority of the BAs were conjugated with taurine. Various BA biotransformations occurred subsequent to BA feeding. For example, during CA feeding, TCA (86.1→298.5 nmol/g) and TDCA (7.7→38.4) became the major constituents of hepatic BAs, followed by increased DCA (0.4→5.2), GCA (0.1→0.5), GDCA (0.0→0.1), isoDCA (0.0→0.3), and 12-oxoLCA (0.3→1.2). Mice fed DCA displayed a marked increase in TDCA (7.7→57.2), GDCA (0.0→0.2), isoDCA (0.0→0.5), and 12-oxoLCA (0.3→1.0), with a tendency to increase TCA, GCA, and CA. However, both CA and DCA feeding significantly decreased most of other conjugated (TαMCA, TβMCA, TωMCA, THCA, TMDCA, TUDCA, THDCA, TCDCA, and TLCA) and unconjugated BAs (αMCA, βMCA, ωMCA, MDCA, UDCA, HDCA, CDCA, LCA, 7-oxoDCA, 12-oxoCDCA, 6-oxoLCA, and 7-oxoLCA) (supplementary Figs. VI, VII).TABLE 1.BA concentrations in livers of mice fed various BA-supplemented dietsBA (nmol/g liver)Control1% CA0.3% DCA0.3% CDCA0.3% LCA3% UDCA2% ResinMFMFMFMFMFMFMFTαMCA6.9 ± 1.66.4 ± 1.02.0 ± 0.3aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).2.1 ± 0.5aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).2.8 ± 0.4aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).2.0 ± 0.3aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).31.8 ± 6.1aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).31.9 ± 4.5aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).20.0 ± 3.2aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).18.4 ± 3.2aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).2.5 ± 0.5aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).1.7 ± 0.3aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).2.4 ± 0.2aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).5.3 ± 1.0bSignificant difference between male and female mouse livers in the same group (P < 0.05).αMCA5.8 ± 0.83.0 ± 0.6bSignificant difference between male and female mouse livers in the same group (P < 0.05).0.9 ± 0.1aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).0.3 ± 0.1aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).bSignificant difference between male and female mouse livers in the same group (P < 0.05).0.5 ± 0.1aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).0.4 ± 0.0aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).30.5 ± 6.7aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).18.7 ± 2.4aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).7.6 ± 1.44.8 ± 0.816.6 ± 4.19.6 ± 2.6aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).2.1 ± 0.2aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).2.0 ± 0.2TβMCA34.2 ± 8.832.8 ± 7.32.7 ± 0.5aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).2.7 ± 0.3aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).bSignificant difference between male and female mouse livers in the same group (P < 0.05).4.2 ± 0.9aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).5.3 ± 0.7aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).12.2 ± 2.3aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).19.0 ± 3.221.1 ± 7.824.2 ± 5.56.1 ± 1.1aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).6.9 ± 1.3aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).1.2 ± 0.2aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).3.0 ± 0.7aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).bSignificant difference between male and female mouse livers in the same group (P < 0.05).βMCA35.1 ± 5.021.9 ± 3.92.3 ± 0.4aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).0.8 ± 0.3aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).2.3 ± 0.8aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).2.7 ± 0.2aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).12.9 ± 1.8aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).14.4 ± 1.87.7 ± 2.7aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).7.0 ± 2.1aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).68.3 ± 18.366.0 ± 16.0aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).1.5 ± 0.3aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).1.4 ± 0.2aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).TωMCA18.1 ± 4.511.3 ± 2.00.5 ± 0.1aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).0.5 ± 0.0aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).1.2 ± 0.3aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).1.6 ± 0.4aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).3.1 ± 0.3aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).3.6 ± 0.4aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).6.9 ± 2.98.8 ± 1.80.5 ± 0.1aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).0.5 ± 0.2aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).0.3 ± 0.1aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).0.6 ± 0.0aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).bSignificant difference between male and female mouse livers in the same group (P < 0.05).ωMCA11.8 ± 2.14.9 ± 0.8bSignificant difference between male and female mouse livers in the same group (P < 0.05).0.4 ± 0.1aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).0.1 ± 0.0aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).bSignificant difference between male and female mouse livers in the same group (P < 0.05).0.5 ± 0.1aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).0.5 ± 0.1aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).2.4 ± 0.4aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).1.7 ± 0.1aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).2.0 ± 0.9aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).1.8 ± 0.6aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).121.4 ± 39.795.6 ± 25.7aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).0.2 ± 0.0aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).0.2 ± 0.0aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).THCA0.3 ± 0.10.3 ± 0.10.1 ± 0.0aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).0.1 ± 0.0aSignificant difference between the same gender of control and BA-fed groups (P < 0.05).0.