4.6 Article

Estrogen receptor genes polymorphisms determine serum lipid profile in healthy postmenopausal women treated with calcium, vitamin D, and genistein

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 120, 期 8, 页码 13115-13120

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcb.28584

关键词

calcium; cardiovascular; estrogen receptor; genistein; polymorphism; vitamin D

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cardiovascular risk increases in women after menopause. Unfavorable lipid-lipoprotein changes due to a lack of estrogens may have an important role in this context. Estrogen actions are mainly mediated by their binding to two estrogen receptors (ERs) whose signaling may be conditioned by different factors. Calcium, vitamin D, and genistein, among others, cause a beneficial effect on serum lipid profile by its modulation. Some genetic factors can also determine this signal. We determined the possible additive effect of genistein on calcium and vitamin D supplementation regarding serum lipid profile changes and whether ER polymorphisms may mediate in this effect. We performed a prospective, double blind study in which women were randomized in two groups: one group received calcium and vitamin D and the other group received calcium, vitamin D and genistein. Subsequently, we studied rs9340799, rs928554, and rs4986938 ER polymorphisms in both groups. Our results showed that being a carrier of the variant allele G of rs928554 polymorphism was associated with a greater decrease in triglyceride levels and that the homozygous AA genotype of rs9340799 polymorphism was associated with a greater decrease in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglyceride levels after calcium, vitamin D, and genistein supplementation. This is the first report showing an association between polymorphisms in ER genes and an improvement of the serum lipid profile after taking calcium, vitamin D, and genistein supplementation in postmenopausal women. It reinforces the hypothesis that genetic factors are crucial in ER signalling.

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