4.6 Article

Δ-6 Desaturase Substrate Competition: Dietary Linoleic Acid (18:2n-6) Has Only Trivial Effects on α-Linolenic Acid (18:3n-3) Bioconversion in the Teleost Rainbow Trout

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057463

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council's Discovery Projects funding scheme [DP1093570]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is generally accepted that, in vertebrates, omega-3 (n-3) and omega-6 (n-6) poly-unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) compete for Delta-6 desaturase enzyme in order to be bioconverted into long-chain PUFA (LC-PUFA). However, recent studies into teleost fatty acid metabolism suggest that these metabolic processes may not conform entirely to what has been previously observed in mammals and other animal models. Recent work on rainbow trout has led us to question specifically if linoleic acid (LA, 18:2n-6) and alpha-linolenic acid (ALA, 18:3n-3) (Delta-6 desaturase substrates) are in direct competition for access to Delta-6 desaturase. Two experimental diets were formulated with fixed levels of ALA, while LA levels were varied (high and low) to examine if increased availability of LA would result in decreased bioconversion of ALA to its LC-PUFA products through substrate competition. No significant difference in ALA metabolism towards n-3 LC-PUFA was exhibited between diets while significant differences were observed in LA metabolism towards n-6 LC-PUFA. These results are evidence for minor if any competition between substrates for Delta-6 desaturase, suggesting that, paradoxically, the activity of Delta-6 desaturase on n-3 and n-6 substrates is independent. These results call for a paradigm shift in the way we approach teleost fatty acid metabolism. The findings are also important with regard to diet formulation in the aquaculture industry as they indicate that there should be no concern for possible substrate competition between 18: 3n-3 and 18:2n-6, when aiming at increased n-3 LC-PUFA bioconversion in vivo.

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