↓ Skip to main content

Identification of a botanical inhibitor of intestinal diacylglyceride acyltransferase 1 activity via in vitro screening and a parallel, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition & Metabolism, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Identification of a botanical inhibitor of intestinal diacylglyceride acyltransferase 1 activity via in vitro screening and a parallel, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial
Published in
Nutrition & Metabolism, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12986-015-0025-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rodney A. Velliquette, Kerry Grann, Stephen R. Missler, Jennifer Patterson, Chun Hu, Kevin W. Gellenbeck, Jeffrey D. Scholten, R. Keith Randolph

Abstract

Diacylglyceride acyltransferase 1 (DGAT1) is the enzyme that adds the final fatty acid on to a diacylglyceride during triglyceride (TG) synthesis. DGAT1 plays a key role in the repackaging of dietary TG into circulating TG rich chylomicrons. A growing amount of research has indicated that an exaggerated postprandial circulating TG level is a risk indicator for cardiovascular and metabolic disorders. The aim of this research was to identify a botanical extract that inhibits intestinal DGAT1 activity and attenuates postprandial hypertriglyceridemia in overweight and obese humans. Twenty individual phytochemicals and an internal proprietary botanical extract library were screened with a primary cell-free DGAT1 enzyme assay that contained dioleoyl glycerol and palmitoleoyl Coenzyme A as substrates plus human intestinal microsomes as the DGAT1 enzyme source. Botanical extracts with IC50 values < 100 μg/mL were evaluated in a cellular DGAT1 assay. The cellular DGAT1 assay comprised the analysis of (14)C labeled TG synthesis in cells incubated with (14)C-glycerol and 0.3 mM oleic acid. Lead botanical extracts were then evaluated in a parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Ninety healthy, overweight and obese participants were randomized to receive 2 g daily of placebo or individual botanical extracts (the investigational product) for seven days. Serum TG levels were measured before and after consuming a high fat meal (HFM) challenge (0.354 L drink/shake; 77 g fat, 25 g carbohydrate and 9 g protein) as a marker of intestinal DGAT1 enzyme activity. Phenolic acids (i.e., gallic acid) and polyphenols (i.e., cyanidin) abundantly found in nature appeared to inhibit DGAT1 enzyme activity in vitro. Four polyphenolic rich botanical extracts were identified from in vitro evaluation in both cell-free and cellular model systems: apple peel extract (APE), grape extract (GE), red raspberry leaf extract (RLE) and apricot/nectarine extract (ANE) (IC50 = 1.4, 5.6, and 10.4 and 3.4 μg/mL, respectively). In the seven day clinical trial, compared to placebo, only GE significantly reduced the baseline subtracted change in serum TG AUC following consumption of the HFM (AUC = 281 ± 37 vs. 181 ± 30 mg/dL*h, respectively; P = 0.021). Chromatographic characterization of the GE revealed a large number of closely eluting components containing proanthocyanidins, catechins, anthocyanins and their secondary metabolites that corresponded with the observed DGAT1 enzyme inhibition in the cell-free model. These data suggest that a dietary GE has the potential to attenuate postprandial hypertriglyceridemia in part by the inhibition of intestinal DGAT1 enzyme activity without intolerable side effects. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333461.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 20 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 23 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 January 2021.
All research outputs
#13,956,905
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition & Metabolism
#580
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,126
of 264,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition & Metabolism
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.5. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 264,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.