4.5 Article

Long-term dietary restriction influences plasma ghrelin and GOAT mRNA level in rats

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 99, 期 5, 页码 605-610

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2010.01.034

关键词

Ghrelin-O-acyltransferase; Caloric restriction; Satiety; Gut hormones; Des-acyl ghrelin

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  3. Margaret Gunn Endowment for Animal Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to examine the effect of chronic dietary restriction on the physical characteristics of the intestine and gut-derived satiety hormone production. Male Wistar rats (8 weeks) were randomized to ad libitum (AL) or 35% dietary restriction (DR) for 5 months. At the end of the study, physical measurements were made on the intestine and satiety hormone secretion and mRNA expression determined. A comparison group of young, growing AL rats (5 weeks) was also examined. The adult DR rats gained less weight over 5 months and had lower fat mass than adult AL rats (p<0.05). The weight of the small intestine as a percentage of total body weight was greater in adult DR compared to adult AL but lower than young AL rats. Compared to AL DR down-regulated proglucagon and cholecystokinin mRNA in the duodenum and ghrelin mRNA in the stomach of adult rats but was not different from young AL Ghrelin-O-acyltransferase (GOAT) mRNA in the stomach was up-regulated 21-fold in adult AL rats compared to young AL and 14-fold compared to adult DR rats. Total and des-acyl ghrelin was approximately 50% higher in adult DR and young AL rats compared to adult AL Plasma leptin and insulin were lower in adult DR and young AL rats compared to adult AL Our findings suggest that long-term energy deficits continue to drive up ghrelin levels which may have profound implications for practical implementation of DR as an anti-aging or anti-obesity strategy in humans. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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