4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Correlations between blood and tissue omega-3 LCPUFA status following dietary ALA intervention in rats

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.plefa.2012.04.005

关键词

ALA%en; Dietary fatty acids; Tissue fatty acid profile; LCPUFA; Omega-3 Index

资金

  1. FOODplus Research Centre, School of Agriculture Food and Wine, The University of Adelaide
  2. Rheumatology Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital
  3. Career Development Award from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia
  4. NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to assess relationships between the fatty acid contents of plasma and erythrocyte phospholipids and those in liver, heart, brain, kidney and quadriceps muscle in rats. To obtain a wide range of tissue omega-3 (n-3) long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) we subjected weanling rats to dietary treatment with the n-3 LCPUFA precursor, alpha linolenic acid (ALA, 18:3 n-3) for 3 weeks. With the exception of the brain, we found strong and consistent correlations between the total n-3 LCPUFA fatty acid content of both plasma and erythrocyte phospholipids with fatty acid levels in all tissues. The relationships between eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA, 20:5 n-3) and docosapentaenoic acid (DPA, 22:5 n-3) content in both blood fractions with levels in liver, kidney, heart and quadriceps muscle phospholipids were stronger than those for docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, 22:6 n-3). The strong correlations between the EPA+DHA (the Omega-3 Index), total n-3 LCPUFA and total n-3 PUFA contents in both plasma and erythrocyte phospholipids and tissues investigated in this study suggest that, under a wide range of n-3 LCPUFA values, plasma and erythrocyte n-3 fatty acid content reflect not only dietary PUFA intakes but also accumulation of endogenously synthesised n-3 LCPUFA, and thus can be used as a reliable surrogate for assessing n-3 status in key peripheral tissues. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据