4.6 Article

Cardiovascular Disease-Related Parameters and Oxidative Stress in SHROB Rats, a Model for Metabolic Syndrome

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104637

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Ministries of Science and Innovation and of Economy and Competitiveness [AGL2009-12374-C03-01, AGL2009-12374-C03-02, AGL2009-12374-C03-03, AGL2013-49079-C2-1-R, AGL2013-49079-C2-2-R]
  2. Generalitat de Catalunya regional authorities [2009SGR-1308]
  3. European Union [FP7-KBBE-222639]
  4. ICREA Foundation of the Generalitat de Catalunya
  5. Panamanian Government (SENACYT/IFRHU)
  6. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation
  7. ISCIII
  8. Xunta de Galicia [CD09/00068]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

SHROB rats have been suggested as a model for metabolic syndrome (MetS) as a situation prior to the onset of CVD or type-2 diabetes, but information on descriptive biochemical parameters for this model is limited. Here, we extensively evaluate parameters related to CVD and oxidative stress (OS) in SHROB rats. SHROB rats were monitored for 15 weeks and compared to a control group of Wistar rats. Body weight was recorded weekly. At the end of the study, parameters related to CVD and OS were evaluated in plasma, urine and different organs. SHROB rats presented statistically significant differences from Wistar rats in CVD risk factors: total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, apoA1, apoB100, abdominal fat, insulin, blood pressure, C-reactive protein, ICAM-1 and PAI-1. In adipose tissue, liver and brain, the endogenous antioxidant systems were activated, yet there was no significant oxidative damage to lipids (MDA) or proteins (carbonylation). We conclude that SHROB rats present significant alterations in parameters related to inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, thrombotic activity, insulin resistance and OS measured in plasma as well as enhanced redox defence systems in vital organs that will be useful as markers of MetS and CVD for nutrition interventions.

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