4.6 Article

A quercetin supplemented diet does not prevent cardiovascular complications in spontaneously hypertensive rats

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 137, Issue 3, Pages 628-633

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jn/137.3.628

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Diets high in quercetin may decrease the risk of developing cardiovascular disease. We tested whether quercetin delays or reduces the severity of hypertension, vascular dysfunction, or cardiac hypertrophy in the spontaneously hypertensive rat (SHR). Normotensive, 5-wk-old SHR consumed standard in = 18) or quercetin-supplemented diet (1.5 g quercetin/kg diet, n = 22, SHR-Q) for 5 or 11 wk. Wistar Kyoto rats (WKY, n = 19), fed a standard diet, served as controls. At 16 wk, plasma quercetin, measured by HPLC, was 2.09 +/- 0.33 mu mol/L in SHR-Q and below assay detection limits in SHR and WKY rats. At 10 and 16 wk of age, arterial blood pressure and heart weight. body weight were not different between SHR and SHR-Q. At 16 wk, cardiac function (echocardiography), vascular morphology (hematoxylin and eosin staining of aortae), and resistance and conductance vessel reactivity (wire myography) was unchanged in SHR vs. SHR-Q. Thus, a quercetin-supplemented diet does not delay the onset or lessen the severity of cardiovascular complications that develop in SHR. These findings contrast with previous reports of cardiovascular protection when quercetin was delivered via oral gavage. To determine whether the efficacy of quercetin depends on its method of delivery, 15-wk-old SHR were given quercetin (10 mg/kg) once daily via oral gavage for 4 consecutive days. Arterial blood pressure (mm Hg) was lower in gavaged SHR 0 48 +/- 5) than in SHR-Q (162 +/- 2, P < 0.02) and SHR (168 +/- 3, P < 0.001). These data suggest that mode of delivery is a critical determinant in whether quercetin provides cardiovascular benefits.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available