4.6 Article

Inflammatory markers of atherosclerosis are decreased after moderate consumption of cava (Sparkling wine) in men with low cardiovascular risk

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 137, 期 10, 页码 2279-2284

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jn/137.10.2279

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Atherosclerosis is considered a low-grade inflammatory disease. Polyphenol-rich alcoholic beverages (red wine) have shown a more pronounced antiinflammatory effect than polyphenol-free alcoholic beverages (gin). However, no studies to our knowledge have evaluated the antiinflammatory effects of alcoholic beverages with medium-level polyphenol content such as cava (sparkling wine). We enrolled 20 healthy men (aged 34 +/- 9 y) in a randomized crossover study to receive 30 g ethanol/d as cava or gin for 28 d. Before both interventions, subjects abstained from alcohol for 2 wk. Inflammatory biomarkers of atherosclerosis and expression of adhesion molecules on peripheral leukocytes were measured before and after each intervention. Likewise, dietary intake and exercise were also evaluated. Expression of lymphocyte function-associated antigen-1 (LFA-1), very late activation antigen-4 (VLA-4), Sialyl-Lewis(x) (SLe(x)), and CD40 on monocytes decreased after cava intake (all P < 0.05), whereas only SLe(x) was reduced after gin intake (P = 0.036). Circulating markers of atherosclerosis including vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, E-selectin, and P-selectin decreased after both interventions (all P < 0.05). High-sensitivity C-reactive protein, intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), IL-6, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), and CD40L were diminished only after cava intake (all P < 0.05). The effects of cava on circulating CD40L, ICAM-1, and MCP-1, and monocyte surface expression of CD40, LFA-1, and VLA-4 were greater than those of gin (all P < 0.05). In conclusion, both cava and gin showed antiinflammatory properties; however, cava had a greater protective effect, probably due its polyphenol content.

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

4.6
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