| Literature DB >> 27043608 |
Yu-Jie Zhang1, Fang Wang2, Yue Zhou3, Ya Li4, Tong Zhou5, Jie Zheng6, Jiao-Jiao Zhang7, Sha Li8, Dong-Ping Xu9, Hua-Bin Li10,11.
Abstract
The consumption of alcohol is often accompanied by other foods, such as fruits and vegetables. This study is aimed to investigate the effects of 20 selected fruits on ethanol metabolism to find out their potential health benefits and harmful impacts. The effects of the fruits on ethanol metabolism were characterized by the concentrations of ethanol and acetaldehyde in blood, as well as activities of alcohol dehydrogenase and acetaldehyde dehydrogenase in liver of mice. Furthermore, potential health benefits and harmful impacts of the fruits were evaluated by biochemical parameters including aspartate transaminase (AST), alanine transferase (ALT), malondialdehyde, and superoxide dismutase. Generally, effects of these fruits on ethanol metabolism were very different. Some fruits (such as Citrus limon (yellow), Averrhoa carambola, Pyrus spp., and Syzygium samarangense) could decrease the concentration of ethanol in blood. In addition, several fruits (such as Cucumis melo) showed hepatoprotective effects by significantly decreasing AST or ALT level in blood, while some fruits (such as Averrhoa carambola) showed adverse effects. The results suggested that the consumption of alcohol should not be accompanied by some fruits, and several fruits could be developed as functional foods for the prevention and treatment of hangover and alcohol use disorder.Entities:
Keywords: alcohol; fruit; harmful impact; hepatoprotection; metabolism
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27043608 PMCID: PMC4847061 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13040399
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
The concentrations of ethanol and acetaldehyde in blood in different groups.
| Group | Alcohol Concentration (mg/L) | Acetaldehyde Concentration (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|
| Control | 1901.17 ± 296.83 | 69.17 ± 5.33 |
| 1653.83 ± 136.57 | 58.99 ± 5.12 | |
| 1450.91 ± 264.36 | 83.59 ± 5.54 | |
| 2312.84 ± 366.21 | 69.73 ± 5.10 | |
| 1917.44 ± 206.95 | 66.81 ± 7.59 | |
| 1708.20 ± 273.53 | 69.51 ± 8.67 | |
| 1444.19 ± 293.45 | 79.94 ± 7.27 | |
| 1661.93 ± 354.28 | 59.15 ± 4.66 | |
| 1835.23 ± 174.74 | 62.90 ± 4.40 | |
| 2080.69 ± 156.26 | 69.63 ± 10.66 | |
| 1870.44 ± 239.21 | 69.52 ± 8.58 | |
| 1836.58 ± 92.34 | 65.51 ± 6.20 | |
| 2361.98 ± 368.36 | 75.34 ± 10.31 | |
| 1928.60 ± 115.76 | 58.32 ± 3.51 | |
| 1826.99 ± 260.28 | 69.31 ± 3.34 | |
| 1804.23 ± 335.73 | 76.44 ± 20.31 | |
| 2161.10 ± 363.66 | 76.19 ± 5.55 | |
| 1900.77 ± 496.96 | 75.86 ± 12.72 | |
| 1334.19 ± 281.30 | 74.22 ± 7.86 | |
| 2037.17 ± 300.63 | 71.59 ± 4.02 | |
| 1699.99 ± 71.89 | 82.93 ± 5.31 |
* Means the levels of the parameters in the group were significantly different (p < 0.05) from that of the control.
Effects of the 20 fruit juices on ADH and ALDH activities.
| Group | ADH (%) | ALDH (%) |
|---|---|---|
| control | − | − |
| 6.65 ± 0.13 | −1.01 ± 0.50 | |
| −11.57 ± 0.28 | −61.95 ± 14.80 | |
| 5.63 ± 0.34 | −41.54 ± 9.88 | |
| −8.00 ± 1.08 | −1.45 ± 0.65 | |
| −3.94 ± 0.92 | −9.89 ± 2.62 | |
| −0.89 ± 0.03 | 22.24 ± 7.91 | |
| −1.93 ± 0.18 | −11.81 ± 2.32 | |
| −1.79 ± 0.11 | 0.53 ± 0.17 | |
| −2.84 ± 0.26 | −4.42 ± 0.85 | |
| 0.46 ± 0.06 | −36.97 ± 16.79 | |
| 5.37 ± 0.53 | 6.09 ± 1.20 | |
| −4.39 ± 0.79 | −46.14 ± 7.03 | |
| 4.85 ± 0.13 | −12.33 ± 3.23 | |
| 16.50 ± 0.99 | −22.75 ± 7.17 | |
| −8.16 ± 0.81 | −34.30 ± 12.92 | |
| −15.62 ± 1.24 | −4.63 ± 1.05 | |
| −2.46 ± 0.18 | 1.98 ± 0.44 | |
| −13.27 ± 1.30 | −27.71 ± 7.72 | |
| −4.94 ± 0.96 | −46.76 ± 19.30 | |
| −5.38 ± 1.02 | −40.54 ± 9.56 |
* Means the levels of the parameters in the group were significantly different (p < 0.05) from that of the control.
Figure 1The relationship between the activity of ADH/ALDH and the concentration of ethanol/acetaldehyde in blood influenced by 20 fruits: (a) ADH and concentration of ethanol, (b) ADH and concentration of acetaldehyde, (c) ALDH and concentration of ethanol, and (d) ALDH and concentration of acetaldehyde.
Effect of fruit juices on serum levels of ALT and AST in alcohol-treated mice.
| Group | AST (U/L) | ALT (U/L) |
|---|---|---|
| Blank control | 42.65 ± 10.21 | 32.38 ± 16.72 |
| Model | 55.28 ± 11.23 | 35.88 ± 11.04 |
| 83.90 ± 54.89 | 41.02 ± 10.76 | |
| 14.37 ± 14.35 | 32.22 ± 9.05 | |
| 40.93 ± 10.21 | 40.40 ± 10.16 | |
| 72.42 ± 27.10 | 44.40 ± 14.97 | |
| 54.00 ± 12.19 | 24.84 ± 7.02 | |
| 36.42 ± 8.25 | 18.75 ± 5.61 | |
| 35.37 ± 13.14 | 34.76 ± 12.69 | |
| 49.19 ± 2.49 | 19.91 ± 3.70 | |
| 48.34 ± 13.18 | 37.38 ± 8.48 | |
| 59.82 ± 10.78 | 28.50 ± 13.08 | |
| 38.37 ± 11.39 | 56.98 ± 14.59 | |
| 62.82 ± 6.44 | 34.67 ± 1.70 | |
| 51.78 ± 16.17 | 28.01 ± 4.77 | |
| 31.35 ± 3.70 | 33.99 ± 12.91 | |
| 50.38 ± 13.12 | 33.02 ± 8.53 | |
| 61.30 ± 37.38 | 31.07 ± 16.42 | |
| 61.36 ± 7.75 | 40.48 ± 14.90 | |
| 41.80 ± 7.74 | 42.45 ± 15.09 | |
| 97.38 ± 36.33 | 41.68 ± 12.12 | |
| 54.65 ± 21.65 | 24.24 ± 4.66 |
* Means the levels of the parameters in the group were significantly different (p < 0.05) from that of the model; ** Means the levels of the parameters in the model were significantly different (p < 0.05) from that of the blank control.
Figure 2The relationship between the concentration of ethanol/acetaldehyde in blood and the level of AST/ALT influenced by 20 fruits: (a) concentration of ethanol and level of AST, (b) concentration of ethanol and level of ALT; (c) concentration of acetaldehyde and level of AST; and (d) concentration of acetaldehyde and level of ALT.
Effects of fruit juices on levels of MDA and SOD in alcohol-treated mice.
| Group | MDA (nmol/mg·prot) | SOD (U/mL) |
|---|---|---|
| Blank control | 0.75 ± 0.08 | 59.49 ± 3.60 |
| Model | 0.86 ± 0.16 | 57.83 ± 7.62 |
| 0.83 ± 0.27 | 59.62 ± 9.99 | |
| 0.65 ± 0.07 | 59.00 ± 3.02 | |
| 1.14 ± 0.45 | 56.93 ± 6.17 | |
| 0.60 ± 0.07 | 60.57 ± 3.07 | |
| 0.76 ± 0.19 | 61.90 ± 6.36 | |
| 1.19 ± 0.11 | 54.62 ± 4.29 | |
| 0.78 ± 0.08 | 52.33 ± 3.37 | |
| 0.71 ± 0.17 | 53.71 ± 2.81 | |
| 0.59 ± 0.07 | 63.60 ± 3.23 | |
| 0.62 ± 0.06 | 56.98 ± 3.96 | |
| 1.00 ± 0.25 | 51.01 ± 7.61 | |
| 0.77 ± 0.02 | 52.11 ± 6.99 | |
| 0.81 ± 0.16 | 60.22 ± 4.96 | |
| 0.85 ± 0.08 | 48.32 ± 2.74 | |
| 1.33 ± 0.21 | 54.08 ± 6.43 | |
| 0.55 ± 0.13 | 51.56 ± 3.28 | |
| 1.00 ± 0.15 | 64.98 ± 1.05 | |
| 0.61 ± 0.12 | 63.65 ± 5.63 | |
| 1.04 ± 0.36 | 55.25 ± 3.35 | |
| 1.08 ± 0.18 | 68.28 ± 4.26 |
* Means the levels of the parameters in the group were significantly different (p < 0.05) from that of the model; ** Means the levels of the parameters in the model were significantly different (p < 0.05) from that of the blank control.