MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dietary Ahiflower Oil Increases Circulating Omega‐3 PUFA in a Dose‐Dependant Manner and LPS‐Stimulated Whole Blood Interleukin‐10 in Healthy Subjects

2017· article· en· W4389019907 on OpenAlexaff
Natalie Lefort, Rémi LeBlanc, Marc E. Surette

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNatural Products and Biological Research
Canadian institutionsDr. Georges-L.-Dumont University Hospital CentreUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePolyunsaturated fatty acidSunflower oilInterleukin 8Internal medicinePeripheral blood mononuclear cellUrineWhole bloodFatty acidCytokineEndocrinologyChemistryFood scienceBiochemistryIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ahiflower oil is a dietary oil rich in stearidonic acid (20% SDA, 18:4 n‐3) extracted from Buglossoides arvensis seeds . The present randomized, double blind, placebo‐controlled Clinical Trial investigated the effect of three dietary Ahiflower oil dosages on omega‐3 PUFA content of plasma and mononuclear cells (MC). The impact of the highest dose on stimulated cytokine production in blood was also measured. Healthy men (n=39) and women (n=49) supplemented their diets for 28 days with 9.7 ml of oil per day containing 100% high oleic sunflower oil (HOSO) (n=24); 30% Ahiflower + 70% HOSO (30% group, n=20); 60% Ahiflower + 40% HOSO (60% group, n=20); and 100% Ahiflower (100% group, n=24). Safety parameters measured at baseline and after 28 days were blood and urine chemistries, blood lipid profiles, hepatic and renal function tests and hematology. No clinically‐significant safety‐related values were measured in all groups. Fasting plasma and mononuclear cells (MC) were collected from all subjects at baseline and after 28 days of supplementation, and fatty acid methyl esters were prepared and measured by gas chromatography. Whole blood of subjects in the 100% Ahiflower and 100% HOSO groups was stimulated with LPS (10 ng/mL) for 24 hrs using TruCulture ® tubes at baseline and after 28 days of supplementation. A bead‐based immunoassay quantified IL‐1β, IFN‐α, IFN‐γ, TNF‐α, MCP‐1 (CCL2), IL‐6, IL‐8 (CXCL8), IL‐10, IL‐12p70, IL‐17A, IL‐18, IL‐23, and IL‐33 in resulting supernatants. Linear mixed models probed for differences in time and time × treatment interaction using gender, age and weight as covariates. Amongst significant tissue fatty acid changes, EPA (20:5 n‐3) as % of total fatty acids increased from baseline at day 28 in all Ahiflower groups in plasma (30%, 60%, 100% groups, respectively: 0.60 vs 0.97, 0.63 vs 1.32 and 0.67 vs 1.64, all p<0.05) and MC (0.29 vs 0.39, 0.29 vs 0.55, 0.30 vs 0.70, all p<0.05). In both plasma and MC, the increase in EPA in the 100% Ahiflower group was significantly higher compared to the 30% group, but no treatment effect was discernable between the 60% and 100% Ahiflower groups. The increase in plasma and MC EPA content was significantly greater in all Ahiflower groups compared to the HOSO control (time × treatment interactions, p<0.05). Similar results were obtained for ALA (18:3 n‐3), ETA (20:4n‐3) and DPA (22:5 n‐3) content, but not DHA (22:6 n‐3). Production of IL‐10, an anti‐inflammatory cytokine, was significantly promoted by the consumption of 100% Ahiflower oil (124 vs 188 pg/ml/10 9 monocytes for baseline and 28 day values, respectively) compared to HOSO (132 vs 143). In conclusion, dosage of dietary Ahiflower oil is reflected in the enrichment of EPA and other omega‐3 PUFA in plasma and MC. The highest Ahiflower dosage studied (9.73 mL/day) favors IL‐10‐producing monocyte/macrophage polarization or IL‐10 synthesis. Overall, this indicates that the consumption of Ahiflower oil is associated with an anti‐inflammatory phenotype in healthy subjects. Support or Funding Information Funded by: New Brunswick Innovation Research Chair in Biosciences, Atlantic Innovation Fund, Nature's Crops International

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicNatural Products and Biological ResearchFrench-language works237,207