The obesity epidemic in industrialized countries is associated with increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and certain types of cancer. In animal models, caloric restriction (CR) suppresses these diseases as well as chemical-induced tissue damage. These beneficial effects of CR overlap with those altered by agonists of nuclear receptors (NR) under control of the fastingresponsive transcriptional co-activator, peroxisome proliferator-activated co-activator 1␣ (PGC-1␣). In a screen for compounds that mimic CR effects in the liver, we found statistically significant overlaps between the CR transcript profile in wild-type mice and the profiles altered by agonists of lipid-activated NR, including peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor ␣ (PPAR␣), liver X receptor, and their obligate heterodimer partner, retinoid X receptor. The overlapping genes included those involved in CVD (lipid metabolism and inflammation) and cancer (cell fate). Based on this overlap, we hypothesized that some effects of CR are mediated by PPAR␣. As determined by transcript profiling, 19% of all gene expression changes in wild-type mice were dependent on PPAR␣, including Cyp4a10 and Cyp4a14, involved in fatty acid -oxidation, acute phase response genes, and epidermal growth factor receptor but not increases in PGC-1␣. CR protected the livers of wild-type mice from damage induced by thioacetamide, a liver toxicant and hepatocarcinogen. CR protection was lost in PPAR␣-null mice due to inadequate tissue repair. These results demonstrate that PPAR␣ mediates some of the effects of CR and indicate that a pharmacological approach to mimicking many of the beneficial effects of CR may be possible.

There is little primate risk factor data in the literature evaluating the relationship between proposed mechanisms of PPAR agonist-induced hepatocarcinogenesis at clinically relevant therapeutic exposures. These studies were conducted to characterize the hepatic effects of fenofibrate and ciprofibrate in the cynomolgus monkey. Male cynomolgus monkeys were given fenofibrate (250, 1250 or 2500 mg/kg/day) or ciprofibrate (3, 30, 150 or 400 mg/kg/day) for up to 15 days. The highest doses used were approximately 4 times (fenofibrate) and 9.4 times (ciprofibrate) the human therapeutic exposure for these agents based on AUC (area under the curve). For both compounds, there was a treatment-related increase in liver weight and periportal hepatocellular hypertrophy, which was related to increases in peroxisomes (up to 2.8 times controls) and mitochondria (up to 2.5 times controls). An increase in smooth endoplasmic reticulum probably contributed to the hypertrophy. There was no indication of cell proliferation as determined by the number of mitotic figures and this was confirmed by evaluating cell proliferation by immunohistochemical staining for the Ki-67 antigen. Consistent with the findings by light microscopy, there was no treatment-related effect on the level of mRNA for proteins known to be involved in the control of hepatocyte cell division or apoptosis (e.g. P21, Cyclin D1, PCNA, CDKN1A). Furthermore, there was minimal indication of oxidative stress. Thus, there was no evidence of lipofuscin accumulation, and there was no remarkable increase in the mRNA levels for most proteins known to respond to oxidative stress (e.g. catalase, glutathione peroxidase). A mild induction in the mRNA levels of cellular beta-oxidation and detoxification enzymes (e.g. acyl CoA oxidase, thioredoxin reductase) was observed. Collectively, the data from these studies suggest that the primate responds to PPARalpha agonists in a manner that is different from the rodent suggesting that the primate may be refractory to PPAR-induced hepatocarcinogenesis.

No abstract