In this study, we show that in C57BL/6J wild-type mice, hepatic sitostanol and campestanol concentrations increased after 15 min following an oral gavage with (deuterated) plant stanol esters and cholesterol. This rapid hepatic appearance was absent in lymph-cannulated mice. Therefore, our data suggest that plant stanols can be taken up via a very fast lymph-mediated route, possibly via available preformed intestinal chylomicrons. Interestingly, changes in serum plant stanols lagged behind and became evident after 30–60 min. In the intestine, the SREBP2 pathway was activated, whereas expression of LXRα and its target genes remained practically unchanged during the post-gavage period. The increase in intestinal LDLr and PCSK9 expression was especially pronounced. Surprisingly, changes in hepatic gene expression were opposite to those in the intestine. It should be noticed that these acute effects after a one-time single dose of plant stanol esters are different from those observed after longer-term intake of plant stanol esters [16]. Moreover, in humans we have shown earlier an increased LDLr expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells—which correlate positively to that in the liver [17]—after 8 weeksof plant stanol ester consumption [18]. Questions that are not answered by our studies are: (1) how do plant stanols reach the liver so rapidly after intake in a lymph-dependent way without a clear increase in serum concentrations; (2) do the plant stanols reach the liver in free or esterified form; and (3) does the acute change in hepatic plant stanol concentrations affect liver function?
As expected, there was a clear response in transit time of plant stanols within the enterocytes from proximal to distal along the gastrointestinal tract. This pattern was highly consistent and might relate to the fact that we fed the mice plant-sterol-poor diets from weaning to start the oral gavage with very low background plant sterol concentrations in serum as well as in tissues. In Table 2, we compared serum and tissue plant sterol concentrations in three different studies using diets containing different plant sterol contents. It is evident that lower plant sterol contents result in lower concentrations in various tissues. Therefore, it could be argued that differences in dietary plant sterol content might be a main reason for the large inconsistency between these studies. As shown in Fig. 1, in our hands, when using the plant-sterol-poor diets preceding the experimental day, 15 min after the oral gavage, the sitostanol concentration started to increase in the proximal parts of the small intestine. This is in agreement with observations from Igel and colleagues [9], who also detected deuterated sterols and stanols in the small intestinal wall 15 min after administration via a stomach tube, indicating that the uptake in the enterocytes is a rapid process in mice. Unexpectedly, plant stanol concentrations strongly increased in the ileum 2-h post-gavage.
Table 2 Comparison of serum and liver concentration of plant sterols after administration of diets different in plant sterol content
This can be explained by the fact that the proximal part of the small intestine is the major site of chylomicron formation and secretion, resulting in fast disappearance of plant stanols within the enterocyte of the duodenum and jejunum. In the more distal parts, chylomicron synthesis is less, resulting in a transient accumulation of plant stanols [19] that fades away when ABCG5/ABCG8 activity increases [20].
In this study, we have shown that within the same time frame, plant stanol concentrations were also strongly elevated in the liver, suggesting that plant stanol uptake and distribution is even faster than indicated by Igel et al. [9]. This extremely rapid hepatic appearance of sitostanol was unexpected, since it suggests that it only takes 15 min for the plant stanol esters to be digested and absorbed into the enterocytes, incorporated into chylomicrons, secreted into the lymph, and removed by the liver after entering the circulation. We therefore propose that this very fast lymph-mediated uptake should be facilitated via available preformed intestinal chylomicrons. Coppack et al. [21] described earlier the possibility of releasing such chylomicrons following ingestion of carbohydrate as well as mixed meals. Surprisingly, there was no clear change in serum plant stanol or cholesterol concentrations preceding the hepatic appearance at this early time point. It cannot be excluded that the enrichment of plant stanols in serum was too low to be detected at this stage due to a strong dilution. If true, this dilution must have been lower in the liver, making detection possible. The second, larger increase in hepatic plant stanol concentrations after 120 min might be explained by the uptake of chylomicron remnants by the liver. Theoretically, it is possible to explain this early increase in hepatic concentrations by postulating that plant stanols not only reach the liver via the “normal” chylomicron route, i.e., via secretion into lymph, but also through the portal vein, independent of chylomicron incorporation. Therefore, a second study was performed to specifically address the route of entrance into the liver. In that study, we found that the rapid appearance of d4-plant stanols in the liver was absent in the lymph-cannulated mice. However, the uptake into the enterocytes was comparable between the lymph-cannulated and the sham-operated mice. Therefore, we must conclude that the rapid appearance of plant stanol esters in the liver is lymph-dependent. Interestingly, we were not able to detect d6-cholesterol in the liver within this short time frame, suggesting that the hepatic appearance was specific for plant stanols. However, it could also be possible that the detection limit for d6-cholesterol was too low due to a strong dilution. In line with the observed reduced post-gavage cholesterol content of the scraped enterocytes in the duodenum, the expression of SREBP2 [22] and its target genes increased. Remarkably, the hepatic SREBP2 pathway was downregulated. Whether this will affect metabolism is not known, as changes in mRNA expression are not always translated into changes in protein expression and activity. Therefore, we can only speculate why gene expression in these two tissues differed. In the intestine, intracellular cholesterol concentrations post-gavage decreased, which might have activated the SREBP2 pathway. In the liver, the expression of LXR target genes ABCG5 and ABCG8, both involved in sterol efflux, was increased. The question remains whether the increased hepatic LXR expression can be explained by an effect of changes in intracellular cholesterol concentrations, or maybe via a direct effect of sitostanol. In this respect, both intestine and liver showed a rapid increase in sitostanol concentrations. Therefore, it is not likely that sitostanol itself will be responsible for the changes in gene expression.
There might, however, be an alternative explanation. Spann et al. [23] recently showed that desmosterol was an important regulator in LXR activation in macrophages. We observed that desmosterol concentrations in the intestines were severely reduced by 15 min post-gavage, whereas those in the liver remained stable. In this respect, the large difference in absolute desmosterol concentrations between liver and intestine was remarkable. Therefore, it could be speculated that the differences in desmosterol concentrations might have influenced tissue-specific LXR expression. However, It should be noticed that there was a time delay of several hours between the decrease in intestinal desmosterol concentrations and the changes in the expression profile of LXR. Finally, we found a decrease in the hepatic expression profile of MTTP and apoB, suggesting a reduced hepatic lipoprotein production, which is in line with earlier cell [8] and human studies [24].
The fivefold increased intestinal LDLr expression is suggestive for an enhanced clearance of cholesterol via the enterocytes. Le May et al. [25] showed that LDL provides cholesterol to the intestine for transintestinal cholesterol excretion (TICE), which contributes up to 33 % of total fecal sterol loss in mice. Recently, Davidson and colleagues [26] also demonstrated a role for LDL particles in the delivery of cholesterol for TICE. Moreover, Brufau et al. [27] earlier showed an increase in TICE activity after plant sterol intake. Therefore, it may be possible that the increased intestinal LDLr expression, observed in our study, contributes to plant-stanol-induced TICE activation. Recently, a role for not only intestinal LDLr expression, but also for PCSK9, was suggested in TICE [25]. Interestingly, PCSK9 was the strongest upregulated gene we evaluated in our study. Preclinical [28] as well as clinical studies [29] indicate that blocking PCSK9, thereby increasing the number of available LDL receptors, is an attractive route to lower LDL-C levels. More research is, however, needed to unravel the role of PCSK9 after consumption of plant stanols, especially in humans. Finally, if activation of TICE by plant stanols, thereby increasing the clearance of cholesterol through intestinal LDLr upregulation and neutral sterol secretion into the intestinal lumen, contributes to the mechanism behind the LDL-C reductions, this may also explain why no clear reductions on chylomicron formation in humans are observed after plant stanol ester consumption [30, 31]. In other words, it is possible that increased secretion and reduced intestinal cholesterol absorption explain the cholesterol-lowering activity of plant stanols. However, the suggested mechanism via TICE needs to be further elucidated. In this respect, it should be mentioned that despite the strong increase in intestinal LDLr expression, the cholesterol concentrations in the serum and within the enterocyte did not change. Also, how these results compare to the human situation warrants further study.
The ratio of cholestanol to cholesterol has been used to estimate intestinal cholesterol absorption. Though controversial, increased levels of this marker have also been associated with an increased risk for CVD [14, 15]. One advantage of this marker—in contrast to, for example, the campesterol/cholesterol ratio as marker for cholesterol absorption—is that it can be used when plant sterol consumption is increased, as cholestanol cannot be formed from plant sterols. However, there is a clear lack of knowledge regarding cholestanol metabolism. Serum cholestanol originates from dietary intake, as well as from bacterial formation [32]. In our study, serum cholestanol concentrations largely followed over time the same pattern as observed for cholesterol, which supports the finding of Miettinen et al. [32] that serum cholesterol and cholestanol correlate positively in humans. However, from our data, it cannot be concluded whether or not cholestanol is a valid marker to measure intestinal cholesterol absorption, as this latter parameter was not measured in our study.
In summary, we have demonstrated that orally applied plant stanols had a fast appearance within the enterocytes, and in addition were rapidly taken up into the liver. This rapid hepatic appearance could not be observed in the lymph-cannulated mice, suggesting a lymph-dependent route of entrance. Post-gavage changes in hepatic gene expression patterns of genes involved in sterol metabolism were opposite to those of the intestines, indicating that acute effects of plant stanols are tissue specific. Finally, in the acute condition, intestinal LDLr and PCSK9 expression were strongly increased, for which we do not yet oversee the role in the changes in cholesterol metabolism towards longer-term interventions, but this certainly demands further attention in future studies.