4.6 Review

Flavonols and cardiovascular disease

期刊

MOLECULAR ASPECTS OF MEDICINE
卷 31, 期 6, 页码 478-494

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.mam.2010.09.002

关键词

Quercetin; Hypertension; Ischaemic heart disease; Endothelium; Insulin resistance; Stroke

资金

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia [AGL2007-66108, SAF2008-03948, Red HERACLES RD06/0009]
  2. Junta de Andalucia [P06-CTS-01555]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Flavonols, and specially quercetin, are widely distributed in plants and are present in considerable amounts in fruits and vegetables. In addition to their anti-oxidant effect, flavonols interfere with a large number of biochemical signaling pathways and, therefore, physiological and pathological processes. There is solid evidence that, in vitro, quercetin and related flavonols exert endothelium-independent vasodilator effects, protective effect on nitric oxide and endothelial function under conditions of oxidative stress, platelet antiaggregant effects, inhibition of LDL oxidation, reduction of adhesion molecules and other inflammatory markers and prevention of neuronal oxidative and inflammatory damage. The metabolites of quercetin show partial protective effects on endothelial function and LDL oxidation. Quercetin produces undisputed antihypertensive and antiatherogenic effects, prevents endothelial dysfunction and protects the myocardium from ischemic damage. It has no clear effects on serum lipid profile and on insulin resistance. Human intervention trials with isolated flavonols demonstrate an antihypertensive effect. The meta-analysis of epidemiological studies show an inverse association between flavonol (together with flavone) intake and coronary heart disease and stroke. Therefore, although there is no solid proof yet, a substantial body of evidence suggests that quercetin may prevent the most common forms of cardiovascular disease contributing to the protective effects afforded by fruits and vegetables. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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