4.7 Article

Comparison of the acute response to meals enriched with cis- or trans-fatty acids on glucose and lipids in overweight individuals with differing FABP2 genotypes

期刊

METABOLISM-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL
卷 54, 期 12, 页码 1652-1658

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.metabol.2005.06.015

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trans-fatty acids have been implicated as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. In addition, a polymorphism at codon 54 (Ala54Thr) in the fatty acid-binding protein 2 (FABP2) gene has been suggested to modify an interaction between dietary fat and insulin sensitivity. We examined the postprandial metabolic profiles after meals enriched with C18:1 trans-relative to a similar meal with C18:1 cis-fatty acid in individuals who were either FABP2 Ala54 homozygotes or Thr54 carriers. Moderately overweight men and women ate 2 breakfast test meals, separated by 1 week, each providing 40% of their daily energy requirement and containing 50% of energy as fat. In one meal, 10% of energy was from C18:1 trans, and in the other meal, the C18:1 trans was replaced with C18:1 cis. Metabolic parameters were assessed during an 8-hour period. Insulin and C-peptide levels increased more after the C 18:1 trans meal, and this was associated with a greater fall in free fatty acids. Postprandial glucose levels and oxidation of fatty acids and carbohydrate were not different between the 2 test meals. The Thr54 allele for FABP2 increased the rise in postprandial glucose but not triacylglycerols. Fractional triacylglycerol synthetic rates were higher after consumption of the C18:1 trans meal relative to the C18:1 cis meal only in Thr54 carriers. These data show that a single meal enriched with C18:1 trans-fatty acids can significantly increase insulin resistance, and that in the presence of the FABP2 Thr54 allele, may contribute to increased partitioning of glucose to triacylglycerols and insulin resistance. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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