Alpin Malkan

Publications (2)9.26 Total impact

• Article: Arachidonic acid and docosahexaenoic acid supplemented to an essential fatty acid-deficient diet alters the response to endotoxin in rats.

  Pei-Ra Ling, Alpin Malkan, Hau D Le, Mark Puder, Bruce R Bistrian
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: This study examined fatty acid profiles, triene-tetraene ratios (20:3n9/20:4n6), and nutritional and inflammatory markers in rats fed an essential fatty acid-deficient (EFAD) diet provided as 2% hydrogenated coconut oil (HCO) alone for 2 weeks or with 1.3 mg of arachidonic acid (AA) and 3.3 mg of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (AA + DHA) added to achieve 2% fat. Healthy controls were fed an AIN 93M diet (AIN) with 2% soybean oil. The HCO and AA + DHA diets led to significant reductions of linoleic acid, α-linolenic acid, and AA (20:4n6) and increases in Mead acid (20:3n9) in plasma and liver compared with the AIN diet; but the triene-tetraene levels remained well within normal. However, levels of 20:3n9 and 20:4n6 were lower in liver phospholipids in the AA + DHA than in HCO group, suggesting reduced elongation and desaturation in ω-9 and -6 pathways. The AA + DHA group also had significantly lower levels of 18:1n9 and 16:1n7 as well as 18:1n9/18:0 and 16:1n7/16:0 than the HCO group, suggesting inhibition of stearyl-Co A desaturase-1 activity. In response to lipopolysaccharide, the levels of tumor necrosis factor and interleukin-6 were significantly lower with HCO, reflecting reduced inflammation. The AA + DHA group had higher levels of IL-6 and C-reactive protein than the HCO group but significantly lower than the AIN group. However, in response to endotoxin, interleukin-6 was higher with AA + DHA than with AIN. Feeding an EFAD diet reduces baseline inflammation and inflammatory response to endotoxin long before the development of EFAD, and added AA + DHA modifies this response.
  Metabolism: clinical and experimental 09/2011; 61(3):395-406. · 2.59 Impact Factor
• Source

  Available from: Kathleen Gura

  Article: Parenteral fish-oil-based lipid emulsion improves fatty acid profiles and lipids in parenteral nutrition-dependent children.

  Hau D Le, Vincent E de Meijer, Elizabeth M Robinson, David Zurakowski, Alexis K Potemkin, Danielle A Arsenault, Erica M Fallon, Alpin Malkan, Bruce R Bistrian, Kathleen M Gura, Mark Puder
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Total parenteral nutrition (PN), including fat administered as a soybean oil-based lipid emulsion (SOLE), is a life-saving therapy but may be complicated by PN-induced cholestasis and dyslipidemia. A fish-oil-based lipid emulsion (FOLE) as a component of PN can reverse PN-cholestasis and has been shown to improve lipid profiles. The objective was to describe changes in the fatty acid and lipid profiles of children with PN-cholestasis who were treated with a FOLE. Lipid and fatty acid profiles of 79 pediatric patients who developed PN-cholestasis while receiving standard PN with a SOLE were examined before and after the switch to a FOLE. All patients received PN with the FOLE at a dose of 1 g · kg(-1) · d(-1) for ≥1 mo. The median (interquartile range) age at the start of the FOLE treatment was 91 (56-188) d. After a median (interquartile range) of 18.3 (9.4-41.4) wk of receiving the FOLE, the subjects' median total and direct bilirubin improved from 7.9 and 5.4 mg/dL to 0.5 and 0.2 mg/dL, respectively (P < 0.0001). Serum triglyceride, total cholesterol, LDL, and VLDL concentrations significantly decreased by 51.7%, 17.4%, 23.7%, and 47.9%, respectively. The switch from a SOLE to a FOLE in PN-dependent children with cholestasis and dyslipidemia was associated with a dramatic improvement in serum triglyceride and VLDL concentrations, a significant increase in serum omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids (EPA and DHA), and a decrease in serum omega-6 fatty acids (arachidonic acid). A FOLE may be the preferred lipid emulsion in patients with PN-cholestasis, dyslipidemia, or both. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00910104.
  American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 09/2011; 94(3):749-58. · 6.67 Impact Factor