4.7 Article

Luteolin protects against adipogenic and lipogenic potency induced by human relevant mixtures of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the 3T3-L1 model

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 173, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2023.113608

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that human exposure to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) may contribute to obesogenic effects. The addition of luteolin, a flavone compound, to a human relevant mixture of POPs in the laboratory was able to inhibit adipocyte formation and intracellular lipid accumulation.
Human exposure to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) may contribute to obesogenic effects. We have previously shown that POP mixtures modelled on blood levels relevant to the Scandinavian population induces adipogenic effects in the mouse 3T3-L1 cell line. Luteolin is a flavone that has shown anti-lipogenic and antiadipogenic effects on adipogenesis in in vitro models. In this study, luteolin has been applied to inhibit adipocyte formation and intracellular lipid content increase induced by a human relevant mixture of POPs. 3T3-L1 cells were exposed to a POP mixture consisting of 29 chemicals, including amongst others polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), perfluoroalkylated acids (PFAAs), and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). Rosiglitazone was applied as a positive lipogenic control.Luteolin was tested between 0.5 and 10 mu M. High content analysis was used to assess changes in adipocyte formation and intracellular lipid content in the 3T3-L1 cell line. Luteolin significantly reduced POP-induced adipocyte formation at 2, 5 and 10 mu M, and lipid accumulation at 10 mu M.Interestingly, luteolin did not affect rosiglitazone induced adipo- and lipogenic effects, suggesting differences in mechanisms of action.In conclusion, this in vitro study shows that dietary polyphenols such as luteolin may protect against POP induced adipo- and lipogenic effects.

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