Exploratory study assesses gene expression changes in myocardial ECM with different lipid diets in healthy rats, indicating no significant disruptions.
The myocardial extracellular matrix (ECM) is essential for cardiac architecture, ventricular compliance, and cell-matrix signaling. Because dietary lipid quality can influence oxidative stress, inflammation, and cardiometabolic regulation, it may also affect myocardial ECM homeostasis. This exploratory study assessed whether different lipid-enriched diets modified myocardial ECM-related transcript expression in healthy rats. Forty rats were allocated to five groups (n = 8 per group) and received for 12 weeks either a control diet or diets enriched with crude palm oil, refined palm oil, olive oil, or lard. Myocardial tissue was collected at sacrifice, RNA was extracted and reverse-transcribed into complementary DNA, and relative expression of elastin, vimentin, myonectin, matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2), and the apelin receptor (APJ) was assessed by polymerase chain reaction using ribosomal protein lateral stalk subunit P0 (Rplp0) as the reference gene. Results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed by analysis of variance followed by Tukey-Kramer multiple comparisons, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. No statistically significant between-group differences were observed for elastin, vimentin, MMP-2, myonectin, or APJ expression (all p > 0.05), although slight non-significant qualitative fluctuations were observed for myonectin and APJ in some lipid-fed groups. Overall, the findings indicate that under the specific conditions of this 12-week experiment in healthy rats, the tested dietary lipids did not measurably disrupt myocardial ECM-related gene expression. Because the study was limited to transcript-level assessment and did not include protein, histological, or functional validation, the biological interpretation should remain restricted to early molecular observations under non-pathological conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gervais et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: