4.3 Article

Effect of high versus low doses of fat and vitamin A dietary supplementation on fatty acid composition of phospholipids in mice

期刊

GENES AND NUTRITION
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12263-013-0368-0

关键词

Vitamin A; Poly-unsaturated fatty acids; Desaturase; Elongase; Phospholipids

资金

  1. TAMOP [4.2.2.A-11/1/KONV-2012-0023]
  2. European Social Fund
  3. European Regional Development Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dietary fat and vitamin A provide important precursors for potent bioactive ligands of nuclear hormone receptors, which regulate various enzymes involved in lipid homeostasis, metabolism and inflammation. We determined the effects of dietary fat and dietary vitamin A on hepatic expression of two fatty acid metabolizing enzymes, elongase 6 (ELOVL6) and stearoyl-coenzyme A desaturase 1 (SCD1) and the concentration of saturated fatty acids (SAFA) and monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) of phospholipids in serum and liver. Mice (n = 6) were fed 4 weeks with diets containing 2, 5 and 25 % of fat or vitamin A (0, 2,500 and 326,500 RE/kg as retinyl palmitate). MUFAs and SAFAs were measured using GC and ESI-MS/MS. Hepatic expression of metabolizing enzymes was determined using QRT-PCR. ELOVL6 was significantly down-regulated in response to a high-fat diet (p < 0.001) and significantly up-regulated in response to low-fat diet (p < 0.05). SCD1 expression was significantly lower in high-versus low-fat diet (p < 0.05). The vitamin A content in the diet did not influence the hepatic expression of both enzymes. In plasma, the amounts of MUFAs bound to phospholipids significantly decreased in response to a high-fat diet and increased after a low-fat diet. This tendency was also observed in the liver for various phospholipids sub-classes. In summary, this study shows that fat content in the diet has a stronger impact than the content of vitamin A on hepatic gene expression of SCD1 and ELOVL6 and thereby on MUFA and SAFA concentrations in liver and plasma.

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

4.3
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