| Literature DB >> 32704082 |
Zahra Lotfollahi1, Ana Paula de Queiroz Mello2, Edna S Costa3, Cristiano L P Oliveira1, Nagila R T Damasceno4, Maria Cristina Izar3, Antonio Martins Figueiredo Neto5.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of 6-months consumption of green-banana biomass on the LDL particle functionality in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Subjects (n = 39, mean age 65 years old) of both sexes with diabetes (HbA1c ≥ 6·5%) were randomized to receive nutritional support plus green-banana biomass (40 g) (n = 21) or diet alone (n = 18) for 6-months. Non-linear optical responses of LDL solutions from these participants were studied by Z-scan technique. UV-visible spectrophotometer was used to measure the absorbance of the LDL samples. Small Angle X-ray Scattering and Dynamic Light Scattering experiments were used to look for any structural changes in LDL samples and to determine their size distribution. The Lipoprint test was used to determine the LDL sub-fractions in terms of distribution and size. Consumption of green-banana biomass, reduced total- (p = 0.010), non-HDL-cholesterol (p = 0.043), glucose (p = 0.028) and HbA1c (p = 0.0007), and also improved the protection of the LDL particle against oxidation, by the increase in carotenoids content in the particles (p = 0.007). This higher protection against modifications may decrease the risk of developing cardiovascular disease. These benefits of the green-banana biomass encourage the use of resistant starches with potential clinical applications in individuals with pre-diabetes and diabetes.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32704082 PMCID: PMC7378544 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-69288-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Physical and biochemical parameters for banana and control groups.
| variable | Control (n = 18) | Banana (n = 21) | Between groups | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T0 | T6 | T0 | T6 | |||||
| TC (mg/dL) | 186.8 ± 49.1 | 183.8 ± 35.2 | 0.728 | 185.9 ± 51.6 | 162.5 ± 39.0 | 0.954 | 0.084 | |
| HDL-C (mg/dL) | 59.2 ± 13.2 | 57.5 ± 11.1 | 0.335 | 43.4 ± 13.8 | 41.1 ± 10.5 | 0.559 | ||
| LDL-C (mg/dL) | 99.6 ± 34.7 | 83.7 ± 23.7 | 0.099 | 105.4 ± 49.0 | 104.9 ± 31.8 | 0.952 | 0.959 | 0.077 |
| LDL-C/HDL-C ratio | 1.6 (1.1–2.6) | 1.8 (1.4–2.1) | 0.554 | 2.1 (1.7–2.5) | 2.0 (1.5–2.2) | 0.287 | 0.065 | 0.424 |
| non-HDL-C (mg/dL) | 127.6 ± 43.3 | 126.3 ± 33.0 | 0.874 | 134.1 ± 44.8 | 113.6 ± 32.1 | 0.685 | 0.259 | |
| ox-LDL (mU/L) | 43.6 (29.6–58.2) | 38.1 (32.3—51.7) | 0.138 | 41.6 (30.9–60.5) | 42.7 (34.1–53.1) | 0.651 | 0.977 | 0.544 |
| TG (mg/dL) | 97.5 (85.7–135.2) | 110.0 (80.5–152.0) | 0.647 | 160.0 (103.5–206.0) | 124.0 (96.5–195.5) | 0.246 | 0.118 | |
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 105.5 (97.2–109.2) | 97.0 (88.7–113.2) | 0.269 | 112.0 (94.0–145.0) | 103.0 (92.5–121.5) | 0.175 | 0.176 | |
| HbA1c (%) | 6.1 (5.9–6.7) | 5.9 (5.6–6.7) | 6.5 (6.1–7.2) | 6.2 (5.8–6.6) | 0.110 | 0.264 | ||
| Insulin (μUI/L) | 9.0 (6.6–14.1) | 10.2 (7.7–12.1) | 0.990 | 12.7 (8.5–23.8) | 14.9 (6.5–23.4) | 0.658 | 0.127 | 0.094 |
| HOMA-IR (AU) | 2.3 (1.5–3.8) | 2.2 (1.9–2.9) | 0.861 | 2.4 (2.0–8.3) | 4.2 (1.6–6.6) | 0.287 | 0.105 | |
| Phase shift (θ) | 0.005 (0.001–0.012) | 0.002 (0.001–0.007) | 0.203 | 0.006 (0.002–0.012) | 0.004 (0.002–0.017) | 0.719 | 0.707 | 0.286 |
| Abs 532 nm | 0.049 (0.031–0.064) | 0.032 (0.021–0.064) | 0.216 | 0.047 (0.022–0.082) | 0.056 (0.027–0.088) | 0.058 | 0.950 | 0.140 |
| Abs 480 nm | 0.249 (0.167–0.414) | 0.203 (0.129–0.445) | 0.903 | 0.271 (0.158–0.386) | 0.292 (0.213–0.525) | 0.983 | 0.349 | |
Variables are expressed as: Mean values ± standard deviation (SD) or median [interquartile range (Q1-Q3)]. TC: total cholesterol, TG: triglycerides, non-HDL-C = sLDL-C + VLDL-C + IDL-C. Variables compared between groups using two samples t test or Mann–Whitney tests. Within groups comparisons were made using paired sample t test or Wilcoxon tests. Bold numbers: significant difference (p value < 0.05).
Figure 1ZS typical result: Normalized transmittance as a function of the sample z position of a patient from the banana group at T0 and T6. Experimental data (symbols) and Model fits (lines).
Figure 2(a) UV–visible spectroscopy results: Typical absorbance spectra of LDL sample (patient from the banana group) at wavelengths between 200 and 900 nm. Insert: comparison with more resolution between absorbance of LDL sample from banana group at T0 and T6. (b) Box-plots showing the absorbance at 480 nm of the LDL of the banana and control groups at T0 and T6, *significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 3(a) Typical SAXS results: experimental data (open symbols) and IFT (Indirect Fourier Transformation fit—solid lines). (b) Calculated p(r) functions using IFT procedure. Patient from the control group at T0 and T6.
Figure 4(a) Typical SAXS results: experimental data (open symbols) and IFT (Indirect Fourier Transformation) fit—solid lines). (b) Calculated p(r) functions using IFT procedure. Patient from the banana group at T0 and T6.
Figure 5Typical DLS results: (a) Normalized-intensity time autocorrelation function of a patient from the banana group at T0 and T6. Solid lines are non-negative least square fits (NNLS). Size-distribution functions calculated with the data, averaged by number—black; volume—red and intensity—blue (b) at T0 and (c) T6.
Lipoprint analysis results of LDL from patients of the banana and control groups.
| Variable | Control (n = 18) | Banana (n = 21) | Between groups | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T0 | T6 | T0 | T6 | |||||
| LDL-1 (%) | 12.15 ± 3.04 | 13.01 ± 4.60 | 0.316 | 12.11 ± 3.15 | 12.35 ± 3.41 | 0.688 | 0.967 | 0.611 |
| LDL-2 (%) | 6.97 ± 2.45 | 8.22 ± 3.04 | 8.42 ± 2.57 | 9.24 ± 2.83 | 0.156 | 0.081 | 0.282 | |
| LDL-3 (%) | 1.50 (0.82–2.42) | 2.50 (0.97–3.50) | 0.079 | 1.80 (1.25–4.35) | 2.40 (1.65–5.35) | 0.140 | 0.396 | 0.309 |
| LDL-4 (%) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.00 (0.00–1.10) | 0.528 | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.00 (0.00–1.05) | 0.437 | 0.432 | 0.868 |
| LDL-5 (%) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 1.000 | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| LDL-6 (%) | ||||||||
| LDL-7 (%) | ||||||||
| Large LDL (%) | 19.13 ± 3.77 | 21.22 ± 6.29 | 0.055 | 20.53 ± 4.04 | 21.59 ± 3.78 | 0.073 | 0.272 | 0.823 |
| Small LDL (%) | 1.50 (0.82–2.42) | 2.50 (1.27–4.52) | 1.80 (1.25–4.35) | 2.40 (1.65–6.95) | 0.225 | 0.358 | 0.421 | |
| LDL-1 (mg/dL) | 23.28 ± 10.17 | 24.38 ± 11.42 | 0.590 | 21.59 ± 5.79 | 20.12 ± 7.84 | 0.335 | 0.518 | 0.177 |
| LDL-2 (mg/dL) | 13.58 ± 7.11 | 15.43 ± 7.78 | 0.219 | 15.60 ± 6.10 | 14.71 ± 4.80 | 0.412 | 0.347 | 0.725 |
| LDL-3 (mg/dL) | 2.79 (1.65–5.37) | 4.78 (1.11–6.11) | 0.284 | 2.97 (1.85–9.01) | 3.50 (2.45–7.47) | 0.891 | 0.562 | 0.621 |
| LDL-4 (mg/dL) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.00 (0.00–1.72) | 0.843 | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.00 (0.00–1.30) | 0.625 | 1.000 | 0.868 |
| LDL-5 (mg/dL) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 1.000 | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 0.00 (0.00–0.00) | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| LDL-6 (mg/dL) | ||||||||
| LDL-7 (mg/dL) | ||||||||
| Large LDL (mg/dL) | 36.87 ± 15.61 | 39.82 ± 17.51 | 0.338 | 37.19 ± 9.45 | 34.83 ± 9.58 | 0.239 | 0.938 | 0.268 |
| Small LDL (mg/dL) | 2.78 (1.64–5.37) | 4.78 (2.09–7.69) | 0.118 | 2.97 (1.85–9.49) | 3.50 (2.45–8.77) | 0.807 | 0.544 | 0.821 |
| LDL size (nm) | 26.9 (26.8–27.0) | 26.8 (26.4–27.0) | 0.105 | 26.8 (26.5–27.0) | 26.8 (26.2–27.0) | 0.832 | 0.267 | 0.571 |
Variables are expressed as: Mean values ± standard deviation (SD) or median [interquartile range (Q1-Q3)]. Variables compared between groups using two samples t test or Mann–Whitney tests. Within groups comparisons were made using paired sample t test or Wilcoxon tests. Bold numbers: significant difference (p value < 0.05).