Fish oil supplementation does not alter energy efficiency in healthy males

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Fish oil (FO) supplementation prevents the development of obesity and insulin resistance, and upregulate the expression of UCP3 in skeletal muscle in rodents. This may represent indirect evidence that FO promotes fat oxidation and/or alter energy efficiency. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether such effects can be observed in humans. The metabolic effects of FO were assessed during exercise in order to obtain a direct measurement of energy efficiency. METHODS: Eight healthy male volunteers were studied with and without supplementation with 7.2 g/day FO (including 1.1 g/day eicosopentaenoic acid and 0.7 g/day decosahexaenoic acid) during 14 days. Their VO(2 max) was measured on cycle ergometer. Thereafter, energy metabolism (substrate oxidation, energy expenditure and energy efficiency) was assessed during a 30 min cycling exercise at 50% VO(2 max) performed 2 h 30 after a standardized, high carbohydrate breakfast. RESULTS: VO(2 max) was 38.6+/-2.2 after FO and 38.4+/-2.0 (mL x kg(-1) x min(-1)) in control conditions (NS). Basal plasma glucose, insulin and NEFA concentrations, and energy metabolism were similar with FO and in controls. During exercise, the increases in plasma NEFA concentrations, energy expenditure, glucose and lipid oxidation, and the decreases in glycaemia and insulinemia were not altered by FO intake. Energy efficiency was 22.4+/-0.6% after FO vs 21.8+/-0.7% in controls. In order to ascertain that the absence of effects of FO was not due to consumption of a carbohydrate meal immediately before exercise, 4 of the 8 subjects were re-studied in fasting conditions, FO also failed to alter energy efficiency in this subset of studies. CONCLUSION: FO supplementation did not significantly alter energy metabolism and energy efficiency during exercise in healthy humans.

La collection : essor et affirmation d'un objet éditorial : (Europe/Amériques XVIIIe-XXIe)

Ce volume étudie la collection, phénomène éditorial essentiel. En mobilisant une documentation abondante et variée, les auteurs se penchent notamment sur le rôle des différents acteurs associés au processus de création et de diffusion, sur les enjeux matériels et économiques et la structuration du savoir induite par la collection. La perspective adoptée est large qui embrasse trois siècles et différents cas européens et américains.

Screening for ALK in non-small cell lung carcinomas: 5A4 and D5F3 antibodies perform equally well, but combined use with FISH is recommended.

OBJECTIVES: Immunohistochemistry (IHC) has become a promising method for pre-screening ALK-rearrangements in non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLC). Various ALK antibodies, detection systems and automated immunostainers are available. We therefore aimed to compare the performance of the monoclonal 5A4 (Novocastra, Leica) and D5F3 (Cell Signaling, Ventana) antibodies using two different immunostainers. Additionally we analyzed the accuracy of prospective ALK IHC-testing in routine diagnostics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two NSCLC with available ALK FISH results and enriched for FISH-positive carcinomas were retrospectively analyzed. IHC was performed on BenchMarkXT (Ventana) using 5A4 and D5F3, respectively, and additionally with 5A4 on Bond-MAX (Leica). Data from our routine diagnostics on prospective ALK-testing with parallel IHC, using 5A4, and FISH were available from 303 NSCLC. RESULTS: All three IHC protocols showed congruent results. Only 1/25 FISH-positive NSCLC (4%) was false negative by IHC. For all three IHC protocols the sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) compared to FISH were 96%, 100%, 100% and 97.8%, respectively. In the prospective cohort 3/32 FISH-positive (9.4%) and 2/271 FISH-negative (0.7%) NSCLC were false negative and false positive by IHC, respectively. In routine diagnostics the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of IHC compared to FISH were 90.6%, 99.3%, 93.5% and 98.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 5A4 and D5F3 are equally well suited for detecting ALK-rearranged NSCLC. BenchMark and BOND-MAX immunostainers can be used for IHC with 5A4. True discrepancies between IHC and FISH results do exist and need to be addressed when implementing IHC in an ALK-testing algorithm.