4.6 Article

High Amylose Resistant Starch Diet Ameliorates Oxidative Stress, Inflammation, and Progression of Chronic Kidney Disease

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114881

关键词

-

资金

  1. USDA-ARS Project [5306-51530-019-00]
  2. Danish Council for Strategic Research
  3. ARS [ARS-0426492, 813598] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inflammation is a major mediator of CKD progression and is partly driven by altered gut microbiome and intestinal barrier disruption, events which are caused by: urea influx in the intestine resulting in dominance of urease-possessing bacteria; disruption of epithelial barrier by urea-derived ammonia leading to endotoxemia and bacterial translocation; and restriction of potassium-rich fruits and vegetables which are common sources of fermentable fiber. Restriction of these foods leads to depletion of bacteria that convert indigestible carbohydrates to short chain fatty acids which are important nutrients for colonocytes and regulatory T lymphocytes. We hypothesized that a high resistant starch diet attenuates CKD progression. Male Sprague Dawley rats were fed a chow containing 0.7% adenine for 2 weeks to induce CKD. Rats were then fed diets supplemented with amylopectin (low-fiber control) or high fermentable fiber (amylose maize resistant starch, HAM-RS2) for 3 weeks. CKD rats consuming low fiber diet exhibited reduced creatinine clearance, interstitial fibrosis, inflammation, tubular damage, activation of NF kappa B, upregulation of pro-inflammatory, pro-oxidant, and pro-fibrotic molecules; impaired Nrf2 activity, down-regulation of antioxidant enzymes, and disruption of colonic epithelial tight junction. The high resistant starch diet significantly attenuated these abnormalities. Thus high resistant starch diet retards CKD progression and attenuates oxidative stress and inflammation in rats. Future studies are needed to explore the impact of HAM-RS2 in CKD patients.

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