4.7 Article

Selected fruits reduce azoxymethane (AOM)-induced aberrant crypt foci (ACF) in Fisher 344 male rats

Journal

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
Volume 45, Issue 5, Pages 725-732

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2006.10.019

Keywords

selected fruits; phytochemicals; azoxymethane (AOM); aberrant crypt foci (ACF); glutathione-S-transferase (GST)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Phytochemicals contribute to the vibrant colors of fruits and it is suggested that the darker the fruit the higher the antioxidative or anticarcinogenic properties. In this study we investigated the possible effects of blueberries (BLU), blackberries (BLK), plums (PLM), mangoes (MAN), pomegranate juice (POJ), watermelon juice (WMJ) and cranberry juice (CBJ) on azoxymethane (AOM)-induced aberrant crypt foci (ACF) in Fisher 344 male rats. Forty-eight male Fisher 344 rats were randomly assigned to eight groups (n = 6). The groups were fed AIN-93G as a control (C) diet, the rats fed fruits received AIN-93G + 5% fruits and the groups that were given fruits juices received 20% fruit juice instead of water. The rats received subcutaneous injections of AOM at 16 mg/kg body weight at seventh and eighth weeks of age. At 17th week of age, the rats were killed by CO2 asphyxiation. Total ACF numbers (mean +/- SEM) in the rats fed CON, BLU, BLK, PLM, MNG, POJ, WMJ and CBJ were 171.67 +/- 5.6, 11.33 +/- 2.85, 24.0 +/- 0.58, 33.67 +/- 0.89, 28.67 +/- 1.33, 15.67 +/- 1.86, 24.33 +/- 3.92 and 39.0 +/- 15.31. Total glutathione-S-transferase (GST) activity (mu mol/mg) in the liver of the rats fed fruits (except BLK) and fruit juices were significantly (P < 0.05) higher in the rats fed fruits and fruit juices compared with the control. Our findings suggest that among the fruits and fruit juices, BLU and POJ contributed to significant (P < 0.05) reductions in the formation of AOM-induced ACF. (c) 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available