Dietary phospholipid carriers of DHA do not increase brain DHA levels: a replication study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DHA is primarily found in fish and seafood as triacylglycerols and phospholipids (PLs). Oral administration of PL DHA forms, sn-1 lysophosphatidylcholine-DHA (sn-1 LPC-DHA) and di-DHA phosphatidylcholine (di-DHA-PC), has been suggested to increase brain DHA levels by ∼100% (relative percent) and up to ∼200% (concentration) compared with controls. In contrast, triacylglycerol-DHA and nonesterified-DHA do not produce increases in brain DHA when provided in the diet. However, a subsequent study using a higher dose of sn-1 LPC-DHA did not confirm these findings and reported no significant increase in brain DHA. To address these inconsistencies, we aimed to replicate previous investigations of PL-DHA forms (LPC and PC) and their impact on brain DHA levels. Mice were randomly divided into one of four groups and received a daily gavage for 30 days of 80 μl of either corn oil alone (control) or corn oil containing 1 mg of DHA as nonesterified DHA, sn-1 LPC-DHA, or di-DHA-PC. DHA relative percent and concentrations were determined in brain regions (cortex, cerebellum, hippocampus, amygdala, striatum, and remainder of brain) and plasma using GC-flame ionization detection. Following treatment, no significant differences in DHA relative percent or concentration were observed between control and/or treatment groups in any brain region. Relative percent of plasma DHA was significantly elevated in all DHA-treated groups compared with the control group, confirming systemic absorption of the supplemented DHA. Our results demonstrate that dietary DHA provided as sn-1 LPC-DHA or di-DHA-PC does not increase brain DHA levels compared with nonesterified-DHA or the control group, failing to reproduce prior reports.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".