4.7 Article

Dietary Supplementation With High Doses of Regular Vitamin D3 Safely Reduces Diabetes Incidence in NOD Mice When Given Early and Long Term

期刊

DIABETES
卷 63, 期 6, 页码 2026-2036

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db13-1559

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen) [G.0734.10]
  2. University of Leuven (KU Leuven GOA) [2009/10, 2014/10]
  3. European Community [241447]
  4. PDM postdoctoral fellowship of the KU Leuven
  5. IRO fellowship of the KU Leuven
  6. Italian Ministry of Research
  7. Italian Ministry of Health
  8. Tuscany Region
  9. KU Leuven

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High doses of the active form of vitamin D-3, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D-3 [1,25(OH)2133], prevent diabetes in the NOD mouse but also elicit unwanted calcemic side effects. Because immune cells themselves can convert vitamin D-3 into 1,25(OH)(2)D-3 locally, we hypothesized that dietary vitamin D-3 can also prevent disease. Thus, we evaluated whether dietary administration of high doses of regular vitamin D-3 (800 IU/day) during different periods of life (pregnancy and lactation, early life [3-14 weeks of age], or lifelong [3-35 weeks of age]) safely prevents diabetes in NOD mice. We found that only lifelong treatment raised serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D-3 from 173 nmol/L in controls to 290 nmol/L, without inducing signs of calcemic or bone toxicity, and significantly reduced diabetes development in both male and female NOD mice. This diabetes protection by vitamin D-3 correlated with preserved pancreatic insulin content and improved insulitis scores. Moreover, vitamin D-3 treatment decreased interferon-gamma-positive CD8(+) T cells and increased CD4(+)(CD25(+))FoxP3(+) T cells in pancreatic draining lymph nodes. In conclusion, this study shows for the first time that high doses of regular dietary vitamin D-3 can safely prevent diabetes in NOD mice when administered lifelong, although caution is warranted with regards to administering equivalently high doses in humans.

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