4.5 Article

Comparison of the bone protective effects of an isoflavone-rich diet with dietary and subcutaneous administrations of genistein in ovariectomized rats

期刊

TOXICOLOGY LETTERS
卷 184, 期 3, 页码 198-203

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2008.11.006

关键词

Isoflavones; Biochemical bone markers; Genistein; Bone mineral density; Estrogens

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Administration of the isoflavone genistein (GEN) has been described to result in bone protection but also to induce uterotrophic responses. To compare bone protective effects of GEN with an isoflavone-rich diet (IRD) and to further elucidate molecular mechanisms involved in bone-protection, ovariectomized rats (OVX) received either a diet low in isoflavone content (IDD) enriched with GEN (42 mg kg(-1) b.wt d(-1)) (GEN(d)), an IRD (14 mg kg(-1) b.wt d(-1) GEN, 14 mg kg(-1) b.wt d(-1) daidzein) or were treated subcutaneously (s.c.) with GEN (10 mg kg(-1) b.wt d(-1)) (GEN(sc)) for 12 weeks. Intact (SHAM), vehicle treated OVX animals and those substituted with 17 beta-estradiol (2 mu g kg(-1) b.wt d(-1)) (E-2), served as controls. OVX-induced bone loss could be antagonized in E-2, GEN(sc). GEN(d) and IRD groups. Uterine wet weight (UWW) was only stimulated in E-2 and GEN(sc) animals. Serum biomarkers of bone-formation (osteocalcin, osteopontin) and bone-resorption (telopeptides of collagen type I, pyridinoline cross-links) were elevated in OVX compared to SHAM and E-2 animals. Feeding IRD stimulated bone-formation and inhibited bone-resorption, whereas s.c. or dietary administration of GEN only resulted in a stimulation of bone-formation. The results of the present study indicate that in contrast to s.c. administration, dietary intake of GEN resulted in bone protection without stimulation of UWW. Dietary intake of isoflavones by an IRD also did not result in a stimulation of UWW, yet IRD appeared to be more effective in bone protection than administration of pure GEN. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland 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

4.5
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