4.7 Article

Improved Glycemic Control and Vascular Function in Overweight and Obese Subjects by Glyoxalase 1 Inducer Formulation

期刊

DIABETES
卷 65, 期 8, 页码 2282-2294

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db16-0153

关键词

-

资金

  1. Taif University, the Ministry of Education, Government of Saudi Arabia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Risk of insulin resistance, impaired glycemic control, and cardiovascular disease is excessive in overweight and obese populations. We hypothesized that increasing expression of glyoxalase 1 (Glo1)-an enzyme that catalyzes the metabolism of reactive metabolite and glycating agent methylglyoxal-may improve metabolic and vascular health. Dietary bioactive compounds were screened for Glo1 inducer activity in a functional reporter assay, hits were confirmed in cell culture, and an optimized Glo1 inducer formulation was evaluated in a randomized, placebo-controlled crossover clinical trial in 29 overweight and obese subjects. We found trans-resveratrol (tRES) and hesperetin (HESP), at concentrations achieved clinically, synergized to increase Glo1 expression. In highly overweight subjects (BMI >27.5 kg/m(2)), tRES-HESP coformulation increased expression and activity of Glo1 (27%, P < 0.05) and decreased plasma methylglyoxal (-37%, P < 0.05) and total body methylglyoxal-protein glycation (-14%, P < 0.01). It decreased fasting and postprandial plasma glucose (-5%, P < 0.01, and -8%, P < 0.03, respectively), increased oral glucose insulin sensitivity index (42 mL . min(-1) . m(-2), P < 0.02), and improved arterial dilatation Delta brachial artery flow-mediated dilatation/Delta dilation response to glyceryl nitrate (95% CI 0.13-2.11). In all subjects, it decreased vascular inflammation marker soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (-10%, P < 0.01). In previous clinical evaluations, tRES and HESP individually were ineffective. tRES-HESP coformulation could be a suitable treatment for improved metabolic and vascular health in overweight and obese populations.

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