Clinical nutrition ESPEN · 2026
Differing Emu Oil sources yield similar outcomes whilst Ostrich Oil demonstrates minimal effect in a rat model of chemotherapy-induced mucositis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mashtoub Suzanne, Mhlanga Sisanda N, Cheah Ker Y, Howarth Gordon S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Emu Oil (EO) has been identified as a potential therapy for intestinal mucositis, although the impact of source and batch have yet to be investigated. We compared the efficacy of three different EO samples with Ostrich Oil (OsO) in a rat model of chemotherapy-induced mucositis.
METHODS: Dark Agouti rats were gavaged daily with water, Olive Oil (OlO), EO1, EO2 (batches from company A), EO3 (company B) or OsO for 10 days, injected with saline or 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) on day 5 and euthanized on day 10. Metabolic data, disease activity index (DAI), intestinal organ weights and lengths and jejunal mucosal architecture were recorded. p < 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS: On day 10, 5-FU reduced bodyweight gain, with no oil effect. OlO and all EO samples significantly improved food intake in 5-FU-injected rats from days 6-10 (p < 0.01); an effect not attained by OsO. 5-FU significantly increasedDAI (p < 0.05) compared with healthy controls. Treatment with OlO, EO2, OsO (days 8-10), EO1 (days 8, 10) and EO3 (days 7-10) increased DAI compared with 5-FU controls (p < 0.05). However, EO1 significantly decreased DAI in 5-FU rats compared with all other oil treatments (p < 0.05). Jejuno-ileal weights, though not lengths, were increased by all oil treatments compared with 5-FU controls (p < 0.05). 5-FU increased jejunal crypt depth and lowered the villus height:crypt depth ratio compared with normal controls (p < 0.05), with no further oil effect.
CONCLUSIONS: Different samples of Emu Oil would likely achieve consistent clinical outcomes in the current setting of mucositis. However, further Ostrich Oil studies are required to better understand its therapeutic potential.
METHODS: Dark Agouti rats were gavaged daily with water, Olive Oil (OlO), EO1, EO2 (batches from company A), EO3 (company B) or OsO for 10 days, injected with saline or 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) on day 5 and euthanized on day 10. Metabolic data, disease activity index (DAI), intestinal organ weights and lengths and jejunal mucosal architecture were recorded. p < 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS: On day 10, 5-FU reduced bodyweight gain, with no oil effect. OlO and all EO samples significantly improved food intake in 5-FU-injected rats from days 6-10 (p < 0.01); an effect not attained by OsO. 5-FU significantly increasedDAI (p < 0.05) compared with healthy controls. Treatment with OlO, EO2, OsO (days 8-10), EO1 (days 8, 10) and EO3 (days 7-10) increased DAI compared with 5-FU controls (p < 0.05). However, EO1 significantly decreased DAI in 5-FU rats compared with all other oil treatments (p < 0.05). Jejuno-ileal weights, though not lengths, were increased by all oil treatments compared with 5-FU controls (p < 0.05). 5-FU increased jejunal crypt depth and lowered the villus height:crypt depth ratio compared with normal controls (p < 0.05), with no further oil effect.
CONCLUSIONS: Different samples of Emu Oil would likely achieve consistent clinical outcomes in the current setting of mucositis. However, further Ostrich Oil studies are required to better understand its therapeutic potential.