4.3 Article

Royal jelly prevents osteoporosis in rats: Beneficial effects in ovariectomy model and in bone tissue culture model

Journal

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1093/ecam/nel019

Keywords

bone mineral density; bone tissue culture; ovariectomized rats; post-menopausal osteoporosis model; protease-treated RJ; royal jelly

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Royal jelly (RJ) has been used worldwide for many years as medical products, health foods and cosmetics. Since RJ contains testosterone and has steroid hormone-type activities, we hypothesized that it may have beneficial effects on osteoporosis. We used both an ovariectomized rat model and a tissue culture model. Rats were divided into eight groups as follows: sham-operated (Sham), ovariectomized (OVX), OVX given 0.5% (w/w) raw RJ, OVX given 2.0% (w/w) RJ, OVX given 0.5% (w/w) protease-treated RJ (pRJ), OVX given 2.0% (w/w) pRJ, OVX given 17 beta-estradiol and OVX given its vehicle, respectively. The Ovariectomy decreased tibial bone mineral density (BMD) by 24%. Administration of 17 beta-estradiol to OVX rats recovered the tibial BMD decrease by 100%. Administration of 2.0% (w/w) RJ and 0.5-2.0% (w/w) pRJ to OVX rats recovered it by 85% or more. These results indicate that both RJ and pRJ are almost as effective as 17 beta-estradiol in preventing the development of bone loss induced by ovariectomy in rats. In tissue culture models, both RJ and pRJ increased calcium contents in femoral-diaphyseal and femoral-metaphyseal tissue cultures obtained from normal male rats. However, in a mouse marrow culture model, they neither inhibited the parathyroid hormone (PTH)-induced calcium loss nor affected the formation of osteoclast-like cells induced by PTH in mouse marrow culture system. Therefore, our results suggest that both RJ and pRJ may prevent osteoporosis by enhancing intestinal calcium absorption, but not by directly antagonizing the action of PTH.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available