4.4 Article

Combination of Intermittent Calorie Restriction and Eicosapentaenoic Acid for Inhibition of Mammary Tumors

期刊

CANCER PREVENTION RESEARCH
卷 6, 期 6, 页码 540-547

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0033

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Susan G. Komen for the Cure [KG081178]
  2. Hormel Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are a number of dietary interventions capable of inhibiting mammary tumorigenesis; however, the effectiveness of dietary combinations is largely unexplored. Here, we combined 2 interventions previously shown individually to inhibit mammary tumor development. The first was the use of the omega-3 fatty acid, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and the second was the implementation of calorie restriction. MMTV-Her2/neu mice were used as a model for human breast cancers, which overexpress Her2/neu. Six groups of mice were enrolled. Half were fed a control (Con) diet with 10.1% fat calories from soy oil, whereas the other half consumed a diet with 72% fat calories from EPA. Within each diet, mice were further divided into ad libitum (AL), chronic calorie-restricted (CCR), or intermittent calorie-restricted (ICR) groups. Mammary tumor incidence was lowest in ICR-EPA (15%) and highest in AL-Con mice (87%), whereas AL-EPA, CCR-Con, CCR-EPA, and ICR-Con groups had mammary tumor incidence rates of 63%, 47%, 40%, and 59%, respectively. Survival was effected similarly by the interventions. Consumption of EPA dramatically reduced serum leptin (P < 0.02) and increased serum adiponectin in the AL-EPA mice compared with AL-Con mice (P < 0.001). Both CCR and ICR decreased serum leptin and insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) compared with AL mice but not compared with each other. These results illustrate that mammary tumor inhibition is significantly increased when ICR and EPA are combined as compared with either intervention alone. This response may be related to alterations in the balance of serum growth factors and adipokines. (C) 2013 AACR.

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

4.4
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