4.4 Article

The impact of EPA and DHA on ceramide lipotoxicity in the metabolic syndrome

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 125, 期 8, 页码 863-875

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114520003177

关键词

Ceramide; Lipotoxicity; Metabolic syndrome; High-fat diet; n-3 Long-chain PUFA; EPA; DHA

资金

  1. Research Manitoba
  2. Canadian Israel International Fetal Alcohol Consortium
  3. University of Manitoba Graduate Fellowship
  4. University of Manitoba Graduate Scholarship
  5. Mitacs Converge

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of cardiovascular risk factors, including obesity, insulin resistance, and dyslipidaemia. Consumption of a high-fat diet can lead to the accumulation of ceramide, which may contribute to metabolic syndrome. Studies suggest that EPA and DHA have the potential to improve metabolic syndrome parameters, but evidence from human studies is limited.
The metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a cluster of cardiovascular risk factors including obesity, insulin resistance (IR) and dyslipidaemia. Consumption of a high-fat diet (HFD) enriched in SFA leads to the accumulation of ceramide (Cer), the central molecule in sphingolipid metabolism. Elevations in plasma and tissue Cer are found in obese individuals, and there is evidence to suggest that Cer lipotoxicity contributes to the MetS. EPA and DHA have shown to improve MetS parameters including IR, inflammation and hypertriacylglycerolaemia; however, whether these improvements are related to Cer is currently unknown. This review examines the potential of EPA and DHA to improve Cer lipotoxicity and MetS parameters including IR, inflammation and dyslipidaemia in vitro and in vivo. Current evidence from cell culture and animal studies indicates that EPA and DHA attenuate palmitate- or HFD-induced Cer lipotoxicity and IR, whereas evidence in humans is greatly lacking. Overall, there is intriguing potential for EPA and DHA to improve Cer lipotoxicity and related MetS parameters, but more research is warranted.

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

4.4
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