Ginger and Body Fat of C. Elegans

Ginger and Body Fat of C. Elegans

Discussion

Results to ginger comparison

The effects of intake of a variety of G doses were demonstrated in two charts in Figure 1. The model used leveraged G intake off-food, on-food and during food intake. According to Figure 1, the data was collected and plotted 48 hours after L1. The response to on-food use cases was the most prominent because it registered the highest value on pharyngeal pumping rates that maxed out at over 200. The second-highest performance was recorded during food intake with all values falling under 150. Off-food scenarios were lower at under 100. Nevertheless, a drop in body fat was noted for all doses used. However, worm models did not demonstrate any patterns after G treatment. Furthermore, the response of worms to the treatment was not the same for all doses, and no observable dose-based effects were recorded. Body fat losses were registered during the study for four dose ranges: 2.5, 5, 10 and 20 mg/ml. Food intake scenarios for N2 worms illustrated a drop iactin overall intake with the same treatment of ginger that registered fat losses. Other studies have demonstrated that lifespan in the cases under analysis was completed and marked by worms that shifted into the dauer stage for all concentrations of ginger. A study performed by Lee et al. showed the effects of 6-gingerol on C. elegans under thermal and stress conditions with N2 worms [1]. The same study showed a jumo in resistance to osmotic stress, and that worms treated to the product were marked by prolonged lifespan. Reporting bias was noted in many literature materials, whereas other studies failed to describe the procedures for random sequence generation and blinding of assessors [2]. The dosage of ginger use was also not the same for the study, and there was no relationship with the results. Therefore, appropriately developed ginger clinical investigations need to be applied for straightforward demonstrations [3]. Overall, there were multiple adverse effects regarding ginger use cases on food intake and food fat and lifespan, but the incidences did not vary substantially from other groups [4]. There were no clinically substantially shifts in the lab tests or vita signs. It could therefore be summarized that ginger was safe as a food and a medicinal ingredient for managing obesity.

Mechanism of anti-obesity property of ginger in literature

Publications have reported that ginger improves lipid metabolism. The product improved the serum lipid profiles by cutting the amounts of TC, TG and LDL-C. In the same instance, ginger increases HDL-C IN HF diet for rat subjects [5]. The action of ginger as an anti-obesity product is fully understood by measuring mRNA values of the adipogenic genes and inflammatory cytokines. Ligand-activated transcription factor PPAR-γ serves as a development and differentiation model for adipocytes [6]. Fully developed adipocytes are marked by aP2 and take part in fat accumulation because of their presence in the lipid biosynthesis channels. Furthermore, chronic obesity is showcased by abnormal expressions of genes associated with inflammatory cytokines [7].  In contrast, weight loss changes the expression of genes taking part in the generation of cytokines in obesity. IL-6 and TNF-α are referred to as pro-inflammatory cytokines that are produced when the amount of lipid produced increased in WAT, leading to the pathogenesis of obesity-based issues. Furthermore, adipocytes produce chemotactic signals that initiate the use of macrophages. Misawa has illustrated that ethanol extracted from ginger reduced obesity and inflammation via the inhibition of the accumulation of adipose tissue, as well as mRNA expression of cytokines associated with inflammation such as IL-6 and TNF-α [8].

Comparison: olanzapine and fluoxetine

The exercise further assessed the results of olanzapine and fluoxetine without ginger for food intake, body fat and lifespan. The examination was then compared to literature materials for C. elegans, humans, and other models. A treatment using 100µM olanzapine led to a notable rise in body fat compared to the control experiment at p≤0.05. A notable rise at p≤0.05 in food intake was recorded for intake of N2 worms that were not treated with ginger, but with fluoxetine and 100µM olanzapine. Furthermore, compared to (DMSO), treatment with fluoxetine (F50) resulted in a non-significant increase (0.5%) in the lifespan. According to Keowkase et al., fluoxetine is capable of acting directly or indirectly via insulin signaling channels as a result of the interaction between insulin/IGF-1 and serotonin and channels [9]. The data from the exercise reiterated the assertion because certain receptor genes increased lifespan. More studies were conducted by Weeks et al., provided olanzapine for a variety of tests, which led to the conclusion that the drugs signaled and increase via Akt channels n C. elegans [10]. Other drugs that were knows to influence the central nervous system did not affect Akt signaling. The results supported findings that olanzapine and fluoxetine activated Atk functions in neuronal cells.

Ginger in mitigating effects of olanzapine om fluoxetine on body fat, food intake and lifespan

The firsts case of the investigation about the effects of olanzapine and fluoxetine examined the effects of the drugs in response to body fat. For instance, worms that were treated with (G) illustrated a notable decrease (p≤0.05) in their food intake as opposed to worms in the control group (DMSO). The data showed t the reduction in body fat induced by ginger could be caused by a decrease in the food intake. Furthermore, worms treated with fluoxetine (F50) showed a significant increase (p≤0.05) in their food intake. In addition, the growth features such as length and width in worms co-treated with olanzapine and fluoxetine were unchanged compared to the control worms (DMSO). The findings showedthat the changes in lipid storage in worms induced by olanzapine and fluoxetine was not associated with changes in the body size. Also, worms treated with fluoxetine indicated a significant increase (p≤0.05) in their food intake. Experimental data illustrated that, in comparison to (DMSO), treatment with (O100) significantly (p≤0.05) cut the lifespan of C.elegans. The collective use of olanzapine and fluoxetine significantly (p≤0.05) extended the lifespan of C.elegans as compared to worms treated only with olanzapine alone.  The approach used by Perez et al. was the same for the assessment under analysis because it leveraged compounds that prevented AP-induced food intake alongside other additional tests such as comparisons with the combination of serotine [11]. In other studies, it was implied that C. elegans was a critical component for animal models because they offered a new cost-effective path for the development of drugs sch as olanzapine and fluoxetine [12]. While the drugs were mostly based on rodent subjects, the use of the subjects allowed the process to be more focused and less cumbersome when performing pharmacological studies. Besides, it has been established that more data about obesity could be obtained from C. elegans because the animal is in not under the management of institutional bodies [13]. Finally, works performed by Ullagaddi et al. were based on the co-administration of extracts with olanzapine and fluoxetine that led to induced weight gain [14].

Share this Post