4.1 Article

Red blood cell PUFAs reflect the phospholipid PUFA composition of major organs

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.plefa.2016.06.004

关键词

Fish oil; PUFA; Omega-3 index; RBC; Phospholipid; Lung; Heart; Muscle; Adipose; Biomarker

资金

  1. MSU AgBioResearch

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Numerous clinical trials examining the use of omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 LCPUFAs) on various health outcomes have been conducted, and fish oil remains one of the most widely used nutritional supplements. More recently, studies have begun to utilize the omega-3 index, defined as the sum of EPA+DHA in red blood cells (RBCs), as both a biomarker of n-3 LCPUFA exposure and a potential risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD). Considerably less research evaluates whether RBC phospholipid fatty acids reflect the phospholipid fatty acid composition of other tissues across increasing intakes of n-3 LCPUFAs. We fed mice diets containing increasing amounts of EPA+DHA, equivalent to current recommendations by the American Heart Association on a percent of energy basis, and analyzed the phospholipid fatty acid composition of various tissues in relation to RBCs. We observed that RBCs, heart, muscle, spleen, lung, and adipose tissues all respond to dietary supplementation with EPA+DHA with increasing n-3 LCPUFA and decreasing n-6 LCPUFA levels. Furthermore, the n-3 LCPUFA profiles of all measured tissues had strong (r > 0.7) and significant (p < 0.001) correlations to RBCs. Interestingly, we also observed changes in saturated fatty acid (SFA) and monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) levels across various tissues in response to increased EPA+DHA intakes despite there being no change in dietary SFA and MUFA. Specifically, there were increases in RBC SFA and spleen MUFA and decreases in heart MUFA. These demonstrate that the RBC, including the omega-3 index, may serve as a marker for the relative levels of n-3 and n-6 LCPUFAs in phospholipids of certain tissues. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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