3.9 Article

High-Amylose Resistant Starch Increases Hormones and Improves Structure and Function of the Gastrointestinal Tract: A Microarray Study

期刊

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000335319

关键词

High-amylose maize; Resistant starch; Microarray; Validation Cecal cells; Gastrointestinal tract

资金

  1. National Starch LLC
  2. LSU AgCenter Biotechnology Program
  3. COBRE [NIH P20-RR021945]
  4. NORC [NIH 1P30-DK072476]
  5. National Institutes of Health
  6. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [P20RR021945] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [P30DK072476] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: Type 2 resistant starch from high-amylose maize (HAM-RS2) is associated with increased fermentation, increased expression of proglucagon (gene for GLP-1) and peptide YY (PYY) genes in the large intestine, and improved health. To determine what other genes are up- or downregulated with feeding of HAM-RS2, a microarray was performed. Methods: Adult, male Sprague Dawley rats were fed one of the following three diets for a 4-week study period: cornstarch control (CC, 3.74 kcal/g), dietary energy density control (EC, 3.27 kcal/g), and 30% HAM-RS2 (RS, 3.27 kcal/g). Rat microarray with similar to 27,000 genes and validation of 94 representative genes with multiple qPCR were used to determine gene expression in total RNA extracts of cecal cells from rats. The RS versus EC comparison tested effects of fermentation as energy density of the diet was controlled. Results: For the RS versus EC comparison, 86% of the genes were validated from the microarray and the expression indicates promotion of cell growth, proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis. Gut hormones GLP-1 and PYY were increased. Conclusions: Gene expression results predict improved structure and function of the GI tract. Production of gut hormones may promote healthy functions beyond the GI tract. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据