4.5 Article

Dietary diacylglycerol reduces postprandial hyperlipidemia and ameliorates glucose intolerance in Otsuka Long-Evans Tokushima Fatty (OLETF) rats

期刊

NUTRITION
卷 21, 期 9, 页码 933-939

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2005.01.009

关键词

diacylglycerol; OLETF; diabetes mellitus; postprandial hyperlipidemia; glucose intolerance; adiponectin; C-reactive protein

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of the present study was to determine the effects of dietary diacylglycerol (DG) on the metabolism of lipids and glucose in type 11 diabetic Otsuka Long-Evans Tokushima Fatty (OLETF) rats. Methods: In experiment 1, the rats were orally administered 10 mL/kg of a triacylglycerol (TG) or DG emulsion (15% [w/v] oil), and the subsequent changes in the serum lipid levels were compared. In experiment 2, the rats were fed diets containing 15% DG or TG oil. After 22 weeks, the serum levels of lipids, glucose, and cytokines were determined. In addition, an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed on the rats. Results: Administration of an oral fat load caused marked hypertriglyceridemia with a peak at 2 h. Oral DG loading reduced the serum TG increase; the difference between the groups was significant at 4 and 6 It (P < 0.05). Diacylglycerol also markedly reduced the serum free fatty acid concentration increase due to the fat load. After 22 weeks of feeding, dietary DG reduced serum TG levels in the non-fasting state. Moreover, an OGTT revealed enhanced glucose disposal in the DG-fed rats compared with the TG-fed rats. Serum levels of adiponectin, an important insulin-sensitizing adipocytokine, were higher in the DG-fed rats than in the TG-fed rats (P < 0.05). In addition, DG-feeding reduced serum levels of C-reactive protein, a cardiovascular risk factor (P < 0.05). Conclusion: These results suggested that dietary DG improves lipid metabolism and glucose tolerance, and retards the progress of diabetes mellitus in OLETF rats. (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

4.5
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