↓ Skip to main content

Quercetin inhibits intestinal non-haem iron absorption by regulating iron metabolism genes in the tissues

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Nutrition, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Quercetin inhibits intestinal non-haem iron absorption by regulating iron metabolism genes in the tissues
Published in
European Journal of Nutrition, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00394-018-1680-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marija Lesjak, Sara Balesaria, Vernon Skinner, Edward S. Debnam, Surjit Kaila S. Srai

Abstract

There is general agreement that some dietary polyphenols block non-haem iron uptake, but the mechanisms by which they achieve this action are poorly understood. Since the polyphenol quercetin is ingested daily in significant amounts, we have investigated the effect of quercetin on duodenal non-haem iron absorption in vivo, as well as its effect on factors known to be involved in systemic iron metabolism. Rats were subject to gastric gavage and systemic quercetin administration. Treatments were followed with uptake studies using radiolabeled iron, serum iron and transferrin saturation measurements, LC-MS/MS analysis of quercetin metabolites in serum, determination of tissue non-haem iron content and analysis of gene expression of iron-related proteins. Both oral and intraperitoneal (IP) quercetin caused serum and tissue iron depletion by two means, first by increasing mucosal iron uptake and inhibiting iron efflux from duodenal mucosa, and second by decreasing levels of duodenal DMT1, Dcytb and FPN. Additionally, IP quercetin induced highly significant increased liver expression of hepcidin, a hormone known to inhibit intestinal iron uptake. Oral quercetin significantly inhibited iron absorption, while IP quercetin significantly affected iron-related genes. These results could lead to development of new effective ways of preventing and treating iron deficiency anaemia, the most widespread nutritional disorder in the world.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 24%
Researcher 2 12%
Professor 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Other 1 6%
Other 4 24%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#11,143,840
of 14,656,415 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nutrition
#1,206
of 1,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,433
of 225,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nutrition
#23
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,656,415 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.4. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 225,464 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.