4.4 Article

Long-term feeding of red algae (Gelidium amansii) ameliorates glucose and lipid metabolism in a high fructose diet-impaired glucose tolerance rat model

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD AND DRUG ANALYSIS
卷 25, 期 3, 页码 543-549

出版社

FOOD & DRUG ADMINSTRATION
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfda.2016.06.005

关键词

fructose; Gelidium; insulin resistance; liver lipids; plasma lipids; rats

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was designed to investigate the effect of Gelidium amansii (GA) on carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in rats with high fructose (HF) diet (57.1% w/w). Five-week-old male Sprague-Dawley rats were fed a HF diet to induce glucose intolerance and hyperlipidemia. The experiment was divided into three groups: (1) control diet group (Con); (2) HF diet group (HF); and (3) HF with GA diet group (HF + 5% GA). The rats were fed the experimental diets and drinking water ad libitum for 23 weeks. The results showed that GA significantly decreased retroperitoneal fat mass weight of HF diet-fed rats. Supplementation of GA caused a decrease in plasma glucose, insulin, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and leptin. HF diet increased hepatic lipid content. However, intake of GA reduced the accumulation of hepatic lipids including total cholesterol (TC) and triglyceride contents. GA elevated the excretion of fecal lipids and bile acid in HF diet-fed rats. Furthermore, GA significantly decreased plasma TC, triglyceride, low density lipoprotein plus very low density lipoprotein cholesterol, and TC/high density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio in HF diet-fed rats. HF diet induced an in plasma glucose and an impaired glucose tolerance, but GA supplementation decreased homeostasis model assessment equation-insulin resistance and improved impairment of glucose tolerance. Taken together, these results indicate that supplementation of GA can improve the impairment of glucose and lipid metabolism in an HF diet-fed rat model. Copyright (C) 2016, Food and Drug Administration, Taiwan. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC.

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