z-logo
Premium
Fish Oil Supplementation Reduces Cachexia and Tumor Growth While Improving Renal Function in Tumor‐Bearing Rats
Author(s) -
Coelho Isabela,
Casare Fernando,
Pequito Danielle C. T.,
Borghetti Gina,
Yamazaki Ricardo K.,
Brito Gleisson A. P.,
Kryczyk Marcelo,
Fernandes Luiz Claudio,
Coimbra Terezila M.,
Fernandez Ricardo
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
lipids
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.601
H-Index - 120
eISSN - 1558-9307
pISSN - 0024-4201
DOI - 10.1007/s11745-012-3715-9
Subject(s) - endocrinology , medicine , fish oil , renal function , reabsorption , chemistry , weanling , cachexia , kidney , biology , cancer , fishery , fish <actinopterygii>
The objective of the present work was to study the renal function of healthy and tumor‐bearing rats chronically supplemented with fish oil (FO), a source of n‐3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Weanling male rats were divided in two groups, one control (C) and another orally supplemented for 70 days with FO (1 g/kg body weight). After this time, half the animals of each group were injected in the right flank with a suspension of Walker 256 tumor cells (W and WFO). The W group had less proteinemia reflecting cachectic proteolysis, FO reversed this fact. Tumor weight gain was also reduced in WFO. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was not different in FO or W compared to C, but was higher in WFO. Renal plasma flow (RPF) was higher in the FO supplemented groups. The W group had lower plasma osmolality than the C group, but FO supplementation resulted in normalization of this parameter. Fractional sodium excretion (FE Na+ ) of FO rats was similar to C. Proximal Na + reabsorption, evaluated by lithium clearance, was similar among the groups. Urinary thromboxane B 2 (TXB 2 ) excretion was lower in the supplemented groups. The number of macrophages in renal tissue was higher in W compared to C rats, but was lower in WFO rats compared to W rats. In conclusion, FO supplementation resulted in less tumor growth and cachexia, and appeared to be renoprotective, as suggested by higher RPF and GFR.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here