4.7 Article

Fructose-induced fatty liver disease - Hepatic effects of blood pressure and plasma triglyceride reduction

期刊

HYPERTENSION
卷 45, 期 5, 页码 1012-1018

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000164570.20420.67

关键词

amlodipine; bezafibrate; captopril; iron; nonalcoholic steatohepatitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The most known risk factor for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the metabolic syndrome. In this study, we characterized changes in liver pathology, hepatic lipid composition, and hepatic iron concentration (HIC) occurring in rats given fructose-enriched diet ( FED), with and without therapeutic maneuvers to reduce blood pressure and plasma triglycerides. Rats were given FED or standard rat chow for 5 weeks. Rats on FED were divided into 4 groups: receiving amlodipine (15 mg/kg per day), captopril (90 mg/kg per day), bezafibrate (10 mg/kg per day) in the last 2 weeks, or a control group that received FED only. FED rats had hepatic macrovesicular and microvesicular fat deposits develop, with increase in hepatic triglycerides (+198%) and hepatic cholesterol (+89%), but a decrease in hepatic phospholipids (-36%), hypertriglyceridemia (+223%), and hypertension (+15%), without increase in HIC. Amlodipine reduced blood pressure (-18%), plasma triglycerides (-12%), but there was no change in hepatic triglycerides and phospholipids concentrations. Captopril reduced blood pressure (-24%), plasma triglycerides (-36%), hepatic triglycerides (-51%), and hepatic macrovesicular fat (-51%), but increased HIC (+23%), with a borderline increase in hepatic fibrosis. Bezafibrate reduced plasma triglycerides (-49%), hepatic triglycerides (-78%), hepatic macrovesicular fat (-90%), and blood pressure (-11%). We conclude that FED rats can be a suitable model for human NAFLD. Drugs administered to treat various aspects of the metabolic syndrome could have hepatic effects. An increase in HIC in rats with NAFLD could be associated with increased hepatic fibrosis.

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