4.4 Article

Prevention of diabetic nephropathy in mice by a diet low in glycoxidation products

期刊

DIABETES-METABOLISM RESEARCH AND REVIEWS
卷 18, 期 3, 页码 224-237

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.283

关键词

diabetic complication; advanced glycation; food; kidney; animal models

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK54788] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Reactive advanced glycation end products (AGEs), known to promote diabetic tissue damage, occur endogenously as well as in heated foods and are orally absorbed. The relative contribution of diet-derived AGEs to diabetic nephropathy (DN) remains unclear. Methods We tested a standard mouse food (AIN-93G) found to be rich in AGEs (H-AGE diet) in parallel with a similar diet that contained six-fold lower AGE content (L-AGE), but equal calories, macronutrients, and micronutrients. Non-obese diabetic mice (NOD) with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and db/db mice with type 2 diabetes (T2D) were randomly assigned to each formula for either 4 or 11 months, during which time renal parameters and AGE levels were assessed. Results Compared to the progressive DN and short survival seen in NOD mice exposed to long-term H-AGE feeding, L-AGE-fed NOD mice developed minimal glomerular pathology and a modest increase in urinary albumin creatinine ratio (p<0.005), and a significantly extended survival (p<0.0001), consistent with lower serum (p<0.025) and kidney AGES (p<0.01). Also, in the 4-month study, and in contrast to the H-AGE-fed mice, L-AGE-fed NOD and db/db mice exhibited low levels of renal cortex TGFbeta-1 (p<0.05), laminin B1 mRNA (p<0.01) and alpha1 IV collagen mRNA (p<0.05) and protein, in concert with reduced serum and kidney AGEs (p<0.05, respectively). Conclusion Intake of high-level, food-derived AGES is a major contributor to DN in T1D and T2D mice. Avoidance of dietary AGES provides sustained protection against DN in mice; providing the rationale for similar studies in human diabetic patients. Copyright (C) 2002 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

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