4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Intrauterine, postpartum and adult relationships between arachidonic acid (AA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.plefa.2011.04.015

关键词

Arachidonic acid; Docosahexaenoic acid; Equilibrium; Biomagnification; Bioattenuation; Pregnancy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Erythrocyte (RBC) fatty acid compositions from populations with stable dietary habits but large variations in RBC-arachidonic (AA) and RBC-docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) provided us with insight into relationships between DHA and AA. It also enabled us to estimate the maternal RBC-DHA (mRBC-DHA) status that corresponded with no decrease in mRBC-DHA during pregnancy, or in infant (i) RBC-DHA or mRBC-DHA during the first 3 months postpartum (DHA-equilibrium) while exclusively breastfeeding. At delivery, iRBC-AA is uniformly high and independent of mRBC-AA. Infants born to mothers with low RBC-DHA exhibit higher, but infants born to mothers with high RBC-DHA exhibit lower RBC-DHA than their mothers. This switch from 'biomagnification' into 'bioattenuation' occurs at 6 g% mRBC-DHA. At 6 g%, mRBC-DHA is stable throughout pregnancy, corresponds with postpartum infant DHA-equilibrium of 6 and 0.4 g% DHA in mature milk, but results in postpartum depletion of mRBC-DHA to 5 g%. Postpartum maternal DHA-equilibrium is reached at 8 g% mRBC-DHA, corresponding with 1 g% DHA in mature milk and 7 g% iRBC-DHA at delivery that increases to 8 g% during lactation. This 8 g% RBC-DHA concurs with the lowest risks of cardiovascular and psychiatric diseases in adults. RBC-data from 1866 infants, males and (non-)pregnant females indicated AA vs. DHA synergism at low RBC-DHA, but antagonism at high RBC-DHA. These data, together with high intakes of AA and DHA from our Paleolithic diet, suggest that bioattenuation of DHA during pregnancy and postnatal antagonism between AA and DHA are the physiological standard for humans across the life cycle. (C) 2011 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

4.1
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