4.7 Article

Cellular toxicity of dietary trans fatty acids and its correlation with ceramide and diglyceride accumulation

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 124, 期 -, 页码 324-335

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2018.12.022

关键词

Ceramide; Diglyceride; Apoptosis; Endoplasmic reticulum stress; Diabetes; Trans fatty acids

资金

  1. Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH) [K 125201]
  2. Higher Education Excellence Program of the Ministry of Human Capacities in Biotechnology research area of Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME FIKP-BIG)
  3. Hungarian Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High fatty acid (FA) levels are deleterious to pancreatic beta-cells, largely due to the accumulation of biosynthetic lipid intermediates, such as ceramides and diglycerides, which induce ER stress and apoptosis. Toxicity of palmitate (16:0) and oleate (18:1 cis-Delta(9)) has been widely investigated, while very little data is available on the cell damages caused by elaidate (18:1 trans-Delta(9)) and vaccenate (18:1 trans-Delta(11)), although the potential health effects of these dietary trans fatty acids (TFAs) received great publicity. We compared the effects of these four FAs on cell viability, apoptosis, ER stress, JNK phosphorylation and autophagy as well as on ceramide and diglyceride contents in RINm5F insulinoma cells. Similarly to oleate and unlike palmitate, TFAs reduced cell viability only at higher concentration, and they had mild effects on ER stress, apoptosis and autophagy. Palmitate increased ceramide and diglyceride levels far more than any of the unsaturated fatty acids; however, Incorporation of TFAs in ceramides and diglycerides was strikingly more pronounced than that of oleate. This indicates a correlation between the accumulation of lipid intermediates and the severity of cell damage. Our findings reveal important metabolic characteristics of TFAs that might underlie a long term toxicity and hence deserve further investigation.

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