4.7 Article

Omega-3 fatty acids decrease oxidative stress and inflammation in macrophages from patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-49362-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wishlist -Sunshine Coast Health Foundation
  2. Cluster for Biomedical Innovation
  3. School of Health and Sport Science, University of the Sunshine Coast
  4. National Health and Medical Research Council [1117061]
  5. Senior Clinical Research Fellowship from the Queensland Government, Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is associated with inflammation and oxidative stress, the latter of which contributes to activation of macrophages, a prominent cell type in AAA. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs) have been reported to limit oxidative stress in animal models of AAA. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the n-3 PUFA docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) on antioxidant defence in macrophages from patients with AAA. Cells were obtained from men with small AAA (diameter 3.0-4.5 cm, 75 +/- 6yr, n = 19) and age- matched male controls (72 +/- 5 yr, n = 41) and incubated with DHA for 1 h before exposure to 0.1 mu g/mL lipopolysaccharide (LPS) for 24 h. DHA supplementation decreased the concentration of tumour necrosis factor-alpha. (TNF-alpha; control, 42.1 +/- 13.6 to 5.1 +/- 2.1 pg/ml, p < 0.01; AAA, 25.2 +/- 9.8 to 1.9 +/- 0.9 pg/ml, p < 0.01) and interleukin-6 (IL-6; control, 44.9 +/- 7.7 to 5.9 +/- 2.0 pg/ml, p < 0.001; AAA, 24.3 +/- 5.2 to 0.5 +/- 0.3 pg/ml, p < 0.001) in macrophage supernatants. DHA increased glutathione peroxidase activity (control, 3.2 +/- 0.3 to 4.1 +/- 0.2 nmol/min/ml/mu g protein, p= 0.004; AAA, 2.3 +/- 0.5 to 3.4 +/- 0.5 nmol/min/ml/mu g protein, p = 0.008) and heme oxygenase-1 mRNA expression (control, 1.5-fold increase, p < 0.001). The improvements in macrophage oxidative stress status serve as a stimulus for further investigation of DHA in patients with AAA.

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