| Literature DB >> 23510369 |
Patrícia Borges Botelho1, Karina da Rocha Mariano, Marcelo Macedo Rogero, Inar Alves de Castro.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In an effort to identify new alternatives for long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC n-3 PUFA) supplementation, the effect of three sources of omega 3 fatty acids (algae, fish and Echium oils) on lipid profile and inflammation biomarkers was evaluated in LDL receptor knockout mice.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23510369 PMCID: PMC3627902 DOI: 10.1186/1476-511X-12-38
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lipids Health Dis ISSN: 1476-511X Impact factor: 3.876
Fatty acids composition of the edible oils applied in this study
| C10:0 – capric | - | 1.12 | - |
| C12:0 – lauric | - | 4.92 | - |
| C14:0 – miristic | 7.93 | 10.19 | - |
| C16:0 – palmitic | 17.05 | 6.97 | 5.15 |
| C18:0 – stearic | 3.05 | 0.92 | 2.57 |
| C16:1 – palmitoleic | 9.76 | 2.82 | - |
| C18:1 - oleic (n-9) | 13.20 | 27.48 | 12.77 |
| C18:2 – (LNA) linoleic (n-6) | 1.19 | 1.17 | 27.52 |
| C18:3 – (ALA) α-linolenic (n-3) | 0.68 | - | 26.75 |
| C18:3 – (GLA) γ- linolenic (n-6) | - | - | 13.11 |
| C18:4 – (SDA) stearidonic (n-3) | 3.28 | - | 11.13 |
| C20:4- (ARA) arachidonic (n-6) | 1.82 | - | - |
| C20:5 – (EPA) eicosapenatenoic (n-3) | 19.97 | - | - |
| C22:5 – (DPA) docosapentaenoic (n-3) | 2.20 | 0.38 | - |
| C22:6 – (DHA) docosaexaenoic (n-3) | 11.51 | 42.89 | - |
| Σ saturated FA | 28.03 | 24.12 | 7.72 |
| Σ monounsaturated FA | 22.96 | 30.30 | 12.77 |
| Σ polyunsaturated FA | 40.65 | 44.44 | 78.51 |
| N-6 FA | 3.01 | 1.17 | 40.63 |
| N-3 FA | 37.64 | 43.27 | 37.88 |
| N-6/N-3 FA ratio | 0.08 | 0.03 | 1.07 |
Composition and major fatty acids profile of the high fat diet
| Moisture (g/100 g) | 7.22 ± 0.05 |
| Ashes (g/100 g) | 2.94 ± 0.10 |
| Protein (g/100 g) | 17.99 ± 0.49 |
| Lipids (g/100 g) | 30.72 ± 0.57 |
| Carbohydrate (g/100 g) | 41.13 ± 0.33 |
| Energy (Kcal/100 g) | 512.96 ± 3.32 |
| Fatty acids (g/100 g total FA) | |
| C10:0 – capric | 0.81 ± 0.00 |
| C12:0 - lauric | 1.03 ± 0.17 |
| C14:0 - miristic | 1.68 ± 0.01 |
| C16:0 - palmitic | 26.20 ± 0.62 |
| C18:0 - stearic | 17.30 ± 0.05 |
| C16:1 – palmitoleic | 0.96 ± 0.07 |
| C18:1 n-9 - oleic | 32.73 ± 0.12 |
| C18:2 – (LNA) linoleic (n-6) | 11.94 ± 0.97 |
| C18:3 – (ALA) α-linolenic (n-3) | 0.60 ± 0.06 |
| C18:3 – (GLA) γ- linolenic (n-6) | 0.25 ± 0.06 |
| C18:4 – (SDA) stearidonic (n-3) | - |
| C20:0 - arachidic | 0.27 ± 0.01 |
| C20:1 - eicosaenoic (n-9) | 0.59 ± 0.05 |
| C20:2- eicosadienoic (n-6) | 0.26 ± 0.02 |
| C20:4- (ARA) arachidonic (n-6) | - |
| C20:5 – (EPA) eicosapenatenoic (n-3) | - |
| C22:5 – (DPA) docosapentaenoic (n-3) | - |
| C22:6 – (DHA) docosaexaenoic (n-3) | - |
| NI | 5.15 |
1 Based on Safwat et al. [30].
2 Diet was composed by 187.0 g casein, 133.5 g sucrose, 300.0 g lard, 193.5 g corn starch, 67.0 g cellulose, 53.5 g soybean oil, 46.5 g minerals, 2.4 g L-cystine, 3.3 g choline bitartrate and 13.35 g vitamin mix/ kg diet.
NI, not identified.
Characteristics of the emulsions prepared with three N-3 FA sources
| | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Emulsion volume (μL/d) | 240 | 190 | 270 |
| Oil in the emulsion (%) | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| Oil supplementation (μL/d) | 2.4 | 1.9 | 27.0 |
| Oil supplementation (mg/d) | 2.2 | 1.8 | 25.1 |
| C20:5 – (EPA) eicosapenatenoic (n-3) (mg/d) | 0.44 | - | - |
| C22:6 – (DHA) docosaexaenoic (n-3) (mg/d) | 0.25 | 0.77 | - |
| C18:4 – (SDA) stearidonic (n-3) (mg/d) | 0.07 | - | 2.792 |
| C18:3 – (ALA) linolenic (n-3) (mg/d) | 0.01 | - | 6.71 |
| C22:5 – (DPA) docosapentaenoic (n-3) (mg/d) | 0.05 | 0.01 | - |
| N-6 FA from gavage (mg/d) | 0.07 | 0.02 | 10.20 |
| N-3 FA from gavage (mg/d) | 0.82 | 0.78 | 9.501 |
| N-6 FA from diet (mg/d) | 80.07 | 80.02 | 80.00 |
| N-3 FA from diet (mg/d) | 4.00 | 4.00 | 4.00 |
| Total N-6 FA (mg/d) | 80.07 | 80.02 | 90.20 |
| Total N-3 FA (mg/d) | 4.82 | 4.78 | 13.50 |
| N-6/N-3 FA ratio | 16.6 | 16.7 | 6.7 |
1 Supplementation is expressed as mg/d/animal.
2 Assumed no conversion from ALA to EPA and equivalence from SDA to EPA of 25%, according to Whelan [16], resulting in about 0.70 mg/d.
Body weight, diet consumption, plasma lipid profile and inflammatory biomarkers observed in the supplemented groups
| Initial weight (g) | 26.9 ± 1.3 | 26.8 ± 0.6 | 27.3 ± 0.1 | 27.8 ± 0.8 | 0.670 |
| Final weight (g) | 28.9 ± 2.0 | 28.3 ± 0.6 | 29.8 ± 1.4 | 28.8 ± 0.5 | 0.731 |
| Weight gain (g) | 2.0 ± 0.7 | 1.5 ± 0.0 | 2.5 ± 1.3 | 1.1 ± 1.3 | 0.542 |
| Diet consumption (g/d/mouse) | 2.3 ± 0.2 | 2.3 ± 0.1 | 2.3 ± 0.1 | 2.4 ± 0.3 | 0.886 |
| Cholesterol (mg/100 mL) | 371.7 ± 37.4a | 349.8 ± 37.2ab | 350.2 ± 56.3ab | 312.9 ± 40.2b | 0.040 |
| LDL (mg/100 mL) | 244.3 ± 32.2 | 240.4 ± 34.2 | 227.6 ± 50.4 | 199.3 ± 31.4 | 0.054 |
| HDL (mg/100 mL) | 95.9 ± 8.8 | 82.7 ± 13.7 | 95.0 ± 8.4 | 92.0 ± 13.7 | 0.050 |
| VLDL (mg/100 mL) | 29.7 ± 4.6a | 26.7 ± 5.1a | 27.6 ± 9.7 a | 21.6 ± 3.5b | 0.036 |
| Triacylglicerol (mg/100 mL) | 149.0 ± 23.6a | 133.6 ± 25.4ab | 115.8 ± 34.2b | 109.1 ± 17.5 b | 0.008 |
| CRP (ng/mL) | 121.6 ± 5.5 | 118.9 ± 6.7 | 118.0 ± 9.6 | 124.6 ± 8.6 | 0.232 |
| IL-6 (pg/mL) | 11.4 ± 2.3 | 10.6 ± 2.0 | 10.1 ± 1.9 | 11.2 ± 2.0 | 0.457 |
| VCAM (pg/mL) | 1.7 ± 0.4 | 1.7 ± 0.3 | 1.6 ± 0.5 | 1.3 ± 0.2 | 0.059 |
| ICAM (ng/mL) | 39.3 ± 6.7 | 36.9 ± 3.8 | 39.2 ± 4.4 | 35.4 ± 3.4 | 0.188 |
| ADIPONECTIN (pg/mL) | 13.9 ± 8.3 | 14.4 ± 6.0 | 11.5 ± 3.7 | 14.3 ± 9.3 | 0.805 |
1 Probability value obtained by ANOVA. Values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05; a,b: p<0.05(n = 10/group).
Figure 1Representative photomicrographs of liver sections: (CON) - fatty infiltration around the portal space; (FIS) and (ECH) - antisteatogenic effect exhibiting well-defined cells and low-fat vacuoles in the cytoplasm, and (ALG): hepatocytes presenting fatty infiltration around the portal space. Original magnification 10X.
Figure 2Fatty acids content in the animal liver after the trial: (A) C18:3 – (ALA) α-linolenic (n-3), (B) C18:3 – (GLA) γ- linolenic (n-6); (C) C20:5 – (EPA) eicosapenatenoic (n-3) and (D) C22:6 – (DHA) docosaexaenoic (n-3) - water (CON), fish oil (FIS), algae oil (ALG) and Echium oil (ECH). Bars followed by the same upperscrit letter do not differ (P<0.05). Data are mean±SE (raw data).
Major fatty acids composition in liver homogenate (g/100 g Total FA) observed in the supplemented groups
| C14:0 – myristic acid | 0.47 ± 0.08 | 0.46 ± 0.06 | 0.50 ± 0.08 | 0.41 ± 0.08 | 0.079 |
| C16:0 – palmitic acid | 26.37 ± 1.96 | 28.73 ± 4.15 | 27.60 ± 3.20 | 29.99 ± 3.91 | 0.163 |
| C18:0 – stearic acid | 12.11 ± 3.85 | 13.43 ± 4.98 | 10.50 ± 2.74 | 15.61 ± 6.43 | 0.107 |
| C18:1- oleic acid | 27.09 ± 6.25 | 26.4 ± 6.33 | 29.5 ± 4.87 | 22.15 ± 7.34 | 0.074 |
| C18:2 – (LNA) linoleic (n-6) | 12.87 ± 3.22 | 11.40 ± 4.82 | 12. 53 ±5.81 | 10.07 ± 4.64 | 0.584 |
| C18:3 – (ALA) α-linolenic (n-3) | 0.15 ± 0.13 | 0.14 ± 0.14 | 0.19 ± 0.12 | 0.26 ± 0.22 | 0.744 |
| C18:3 – (GLA) γ-linolenic (n-6) | 0.30 ± 0.05 | 0.35 ± 0.15 | 0.31 ± 0.11 | 0.34 ± 0.09 | 0.396 |
| C20:4- (ARA) arachidonic (n-6) | 6.69 ± 1.85 | 5.31 ± 1.46 | 4.80 ± 1.26 | 4.55 ± 1.22 | 0.060 |
| C20:5 – (EPA) eicosapenatenoic (n-3) | 0.12 ± 0.04a | 0.17 ± 0.06ab | 0.1 1± 0.05a | 0.25 ± 0.04b | 0.004 |
| C22:6 –(DHA) docosahexaenoic (n-3) | 2.98 ± 0.75 | 2.92 ± 0.96 | 2.8 1± 0.88 | 2.76 ± 0.92 | 0.951 |
| N-6 FA | 19. 86 ± 3.56b | 17.06 ± 5.78ab | 17.64 ± 6.61ab | 14.97 ± 5.81a | 0.017 |
| N-3 FA | 3.25 ± 0.70 | 3.23 ± 0.98 | 3.12 ± 0.95 | 3.27 ± 0.96 | 0.982 |
| N-6/N-3 FA | 6.11 ± 1.46a | 5.27 ± 1.08a | 5.65 ± 1.54a | 4.58 ± 1.41b | <0.001 |
1 Probability value obtained by ANOVA. Values followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05; a, b: p < 0.05 (n 6–10 animals/group).
Figure 3Changes in PPARα expression after 4 weeks of supplementation - water (CON), fish oil (FIS), algae oil (ALG) and oil (ECH). *P<0.05.
Figure 4Changes in LXRα expression after 4 weeks of supplementation- water (CON), fish oil (FIS), algae oil (ALG) and oil (ECH). **P<0.01.