White Tea Aqueous Extract: A Potential Anti-Aging Agent Against High-Fat Diet-Induced Senescence in Drosophila melanogaster

Abstract

White tea has been scientifically proven to exhibit positive biological effects in combating chronic diseases, including cancer, metabolic syndrome, etc. Nevertheless, the anti-aging activity and mechanism of white tea on organisms exposed to a high-fat diet remain unexplored. Herein, we prepared a white tea aqueous extract (WTAE) from white peony in Fuding and assessed its in vivo antioxidant and anti-aging effects by employing a Drosophila melanogaster senescence model induced by lard, delving into the underlying molecular mechanisms through which the WTAE contributes to lifespan improvement. Notably, the WTAE significantly extended the lifespan of Drosophila fed a high-fat diet and partially restored the climbing ability of Drosophila on a high-fat diet, accompanied by increased activities of copper-zinc superoxide dismutase, manganese-superoxide dismutase, and catalase and decreased lipid hydroperoxide levels in Drosophila. Furthermore, transcriptomic analysis indicated that the WTAE countered aging triggered by a high-fat diet via activating oxidative phosphorylation, neuroactive ligand-receptor interactions, and more pathways, as well as inhibiting circadian rhythm-fly, protein processing in the endoplasmic reticulum, and more pathways. Our findings suggest that WTAE exhibits excellent inhibitory activity against high-fat diet-induced senescence and holds promising potential as an anti-aging agent that can be further developed.

Keywords: Drosophila melanogaster; RNA-seq; anti-aging; high-fat diet; white tea aqueous extract.

Figure 1

HPLC spectrum (A) and percentage (B) of catechins and caffeine in the white tea aqueous extract (WTAE). Data are expressed as mean ± SD. Significant differences at p < 0.05 among various ingredients are denoted by different lowercase letters (Tukey’s test).

Figure 2

Effects of WTAE on lifespan (A), stomach redness index (B), average body weight (C), and climbing ability (D) of Drosophila melanogaster. ns (p > 0.05), ** (p < 0.01) and *** (p < 0.001) are assessed by log-rank Mantel–Cox tests for survival data. Data in (B–D) are expressed as mean ± SD. ns indicates no difference in the redness index among the flies in different feeding groups (B). Significant differences at p < 0.01 among groups at the same time are denoted by different capital letters, while differences in the same diet group at various times are expressed by ** (p < 0.01), all of which are assessed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test.

Figure 2

Effects of WTAE on lifespan (A), stomach redness index (B), average body weight (C), and climbing ability (D) of Drosophila melanogaster. ns (p > 0.05), ** (p < 0.01) and *** (p < 0.001) are assessed by log-rank Mantel–Cox tests for survival data. Data in (B–D) are expressed as mean ± SD. ns indicates no difference in the redness index among the flies in different feeding groups (B). Significant differences at p < 0.01 among groups at the same time are denoted by different capital letters, while differences in the same diet group at various times are expressed by ** (p < 0.01), all of which are assessed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test.

Figure 3

SOD1 (A), SOD2 (B), and CAT (C) activities and LPO levels (D) in Drosophila melanogaster reared on a non-lard control diet (NCTL), a 10% lard control diet (LCTL), or a 10% lard diet with 5 mg/mL white tea aqueous extract (LWTAE5) at 0, 10, and 35 days. Data are expressed as mean ± SD. Significant differences at p < 0.05 or p < 0.01 among groups at the same time are denoted by different lowercase or capital letters, while differences in the same diet group at different times are expressed by ns, *, or ** (p > 0.05, p < 0.05, and p < 0.01, respectively). All of these are assessed by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test.

Figure 4

Treatment with WTAE regulates various gene expressions in aged flies induced by a high-fat diet. Volcano plots (A,B) represent the number of differentially expressed genes in flies between the LCTL and NCTL groups and between the LWTAE5 and LCTL groups, respectively. Venn diagram (C) presents the number of common and unique differentially expressed genes in flies between the LCTL vs. NCTL and LWTAE5 vs. LCTL groups. Heatmaps (D,E) show the clustering analysis of the top 100 differentially expressed genes in flies between the LCTL and NCTL groups, and between the LWTAE5 and LCTL groups, respectively.

Figure 5

Bioinformatic enrichment analysis for differentially expressed genes. GO (A) and KEGG pathway (C) analysis of differentially expressed genes between flies fed with or without a lard diet. GO term (B) and KEGG pathway (D) analysis of differentially expressed genes between the high-fat diet flies fed with or without 5 mg/mL WTAE.

Figure 5

Bioinformatic enrichment analysis for differentially expressed genes. GO (A) and KEGG pathway (C) analysis of differentially expressed genes between flies fed with or without a lard diet. GO term (B) and KEGG pathway (D) analysis of differentially expressed genes between the high-fat diet flies fed with or without 5 mg/mL WTAE.

Figure 6

Validation of differentially expressed genes with qRT-PCR (mean ± SD). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, and *** p < 0.001 vs. NCTL; ^# p < 0.05, ^## p < 0.01, and ^### p < 0.01 vs. LCTL.