↓ Skip to main content

Eicosapentaenoic (EPA) and Docosahexaenoic (DHA) Acid Differentially Modulate Rat Neutrophil Function In Vitro

Overview of attention for article published in Lipids, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Eicosapentaenoic (EPA) and Docosahexaenoic (DHA) Acid Differentially Modulate Rat Neutrophil Function In Vitro
Published in
Lipids, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11745-012-3726-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

V. A. Paschoal, M. A. R. Vinolo, A. R. Crisma, J. Magdalon, R. Curi

Abstract

Fish oils are used as therapeutic agents in chronic inflammatory diseases. The omega-3 fatty acids (FA) found in these oils are mainly eicosapentaenoic (EPA) and docosahexaenoic (DHA) acids. The anti-inflammatory properties of fish oils are attributed to both omega-3 fatty acids. However, it is unknown whether such effects are due to either EPA or DHA. In this study, the effects of EPA and DHA on rat neutrophil function in vitro were compared. Both EPA and DHA increased the production of H₂O₂ when cells were stimulated or not with lipopolysaccharides (LPS). However, EPA was more potent than DHA in triggering an increase in superoxide release by cells in the basal condition or when stimulated with phorbol myristate acetate (PMA) or zymosan. Only DHA increased the phagocytic capacity and fungicidal activity of neutrophils. Both FA increased the release of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) in nonstimulated cells, but only EPA increased the production of cytokine-inducing neutrophil chemoattractant-2 (CINC-2) in the absence or presence of LPS, whereas production of interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β) was only increased by DHA in the presence of LPS. In addition, there was no alteration in the production of nitric oxide. In conclusion, we show herein that EPA and DHA can differently modulate aspects of the neutrophil response, which may be relevant for the development of therapies rich in one or other FA depending on the effect required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 10 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2012.
All research outputs
#18,320,524
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from Lipids
#1,644
of 1,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,421
of 176,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lipids
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 176,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.