4.7 Article

Cancer preventive effects of a specific probiotic fermented milk containing Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, L. casei LBC80R and L. rhamnosus CLR2 on male F344 rats treated with 1,2-dimethylhydrazine

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNCTIONAL FOODS
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 816-827

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jff.2015.06.035

关键词

probiotic bacteria; anticancer; colorectal cancer; fermented milk; aberrant crypt foci

资金

  1. National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [CRDPJ 349373-06]
  2. Bio-K Plus International Inc. [CRDPJ 349373-06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of fermented milk (FM) consisting of three probiotic strains (Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, L. casei LBC80R and L. rhamnosus CLR2) on colon cancer prevention in rats treated with dimethylhydrazine (DMH) was investigated. The rats were divided into 7 groups of 8 animals. Rats were fed with a high fat low fibre diet; group 1 was a negative control, while groups 2 to 7 were injected with DMH (30 mg/kg s.c.) once a week for six weeks. Groups 3 to 7 were gavaged respectively with 2, 1.5, 1, 0.5 and 0.25 ml of FM every day. After 12 weeks, the rats were sacrificed and the colon, caecum and liver were collected. Aberrant crypt foci (ACF) in the colon were determined using a microscope. Detoxifying enzymes like quinone reductase (QR) and glutathione-S-transferase (GST) and faecal enzymes such as beta-glucosidase and beta-glucuronidase were evaluated by spectrophotometry. The rats fed with the three highest doses significantly lowered aberrant crypt (AC) count, while those supplemented with 1.5 and 2 ml FM lowered significantly ACF count compared to group 2 (p <= 0.05). Rats fed with the highest doses significantly induced GST activity, while only rats fed with 2 ml reduced significantly beta-glucuronidase activity compared to group 2 (p <= 0.05). These results indicate that the FM could have a potential role in colorectal cancer prevention. (C) 2015 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

4.7
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