Does Oil Rich in Alpha-Linolenic Fatty Acid Cause the Same Immune Modulation as Fish Oil in Walker 256 Tumor-Bearing Rats?

OBJECTIVE: Polyunsaturated fatty acids n-3 (PUFA n-3) have shown effects in reducing tumor growth, in particular eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) abundantly present in fish oil (FO). When these fatty acids are provided in the diet, they alter the functions of the cells, particularly in tumor and immune cells. However, the effects of α-linolenic fatty acid (ALA), which is the precursor of EPA and DHA, are controversial. Thus, our objective was to test the effect of this parental fatty acid. METHODS: Non-tumor-bearing and tumor-bearing Wistar rats (70 days) were supplemented with 1 g/kg body weight of FO or Oro Inca® (OI) oil (rich in ALA). Immune cells function, proliferation, cytokine production, and subpopulation profile were evaluated. RESULTS: We have shown that innate immune cells enhanced phagocytosis capacity, and increased processing and elimination of antigens. Moreover, there was a decrease in production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin 6 (IL-6)) by macrophages. Lymphocytes showed decreased proliferation capacity, increased cluster of differentiation 8 (CD8+) subpopulation, and increased TNF-α production. CONCLUSIONS: Oil rich in ALA caused similar immune modulation in cancer when compared with FO.

Fish oil supplementation reduces cachexia and tumor growth while improving renal function in tumor-bearing rats.

The objective of the present work was to study the renal function of healthy and tumor-bearing rats chronically supplemented with fish oil (FO), a source of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Weanling male rats were divided in two groups, one control (C) and another orally supplemented for 70 days with FO (1 g/kg body weight). After this time, half the animals of each group were injected in the right flank with a suspension of Walker 256 tumor cells (W and WFO). The W group had less proteinemia reflecting cachectic proteolysis, FO reversed this fact. Tumor weight gain was also reduced in WFO. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was not different in FO or W compared to C, but was higher in WFO. Renal plasma flow (RPF) was higher in the FO supplemented groups. The W group had lower plasma osmolality than the C group, but FO supplementation resulted in normalization of this parameter. Fractional sodium excretion (FE(Na+)) of FO rats was similar to C. Proximal Na(+) reabsorption, evaluated by lithium clearance, was similar among the groups. Urinary thromboxane B(2) (TXB(2)) excretion was lower in the supplemented groups. The number of macrophages in renal tissue was higher in W compared to C rats, but was lower in WFO rats compared to W rats. In conclusion, FO supplementation resulted in less tumor growth and cachexia, and appeared to be renoprotective, as suggested by higher RPF and GFR.