Sulforaphane improves the bronchoprotective response in asthmatics through Nrf2-mediated gene pathways
Brown RH, Reynolds C, Brooker A, Talalay P, Fahey JW
Respiratory research · 69 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Controlled clinical trial (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
- Intake measured by
- Not stated
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Nonprofit
- Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute
- Grants
- Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute (ID0EVJAE236)
Based on 1 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2015-09-14 · Respir Res · vol. 16 · issue 1 · p. 106
- Publisher
- BioMed Central
- Cited
- 97 citations · more than 88% of similar papers · 2.1× the field average
- References
- 56 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Genomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress · Asthma and respiratory diseases · IL-33, ST2, and ILC Pathways
- Keywords
- Sulforaphane, Medicine, Methacholine, Bronchoconstriction, Asthma, Antioxidant, Pharmacology, Internal medicine, Lung, Respiratory disease, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Cancer research
- MeSH
- lung, humans, asthma, bronchial hyperreactivity, methacholine chloride, isothiocyanates, sulfoxides, bronchoconstrictor agents, antioxidants, tomography, spiral computed, airway resistance, bronchial provocation tests, lung volume measurements, forced expiratory volume, treatment outcome, predictive value of tests, gene expression regulation, bronchoconstriction, time factors, adult, middle aged, female, male, nf-e2-related factor 2, young adult
5 authors
From US
- Robert H. Brown · correspondingBloomberg (United States); Johns Hopkins University; Johns Hopkins Medicine
- Curt J. ReynoldsJohns Hopkins University
- Allison BrookerJohns Hopkins University
- Paul TalalayJohns Hopkins University; Johns Hopkins Medicine
- Jed W. FaheyJohns Hopkins University; Johns Hopkins Medicine
Abstract
Background
It is widely recognized that deep inspiration (DI), either before methacholine (MCh) challenge (Bronchoprotection, BP) or after MCh challenge (Bronchodilation, BD) protects against this challenge in healthy individuals, but not in asthmatics. Sulforaphane, a dietary antioxidant and antiinflammatory phytochemical derived from broccoli, may affect the pulmonary bronchoconstrictor responses to MCh and the responses to DI in asthmatic patients.
Methods
Forty-five moderate asthmatics were administered sulforaphane (100 μmol daily for 14 days), BP, BD, lung volumes by body-plethsmography, and airway morphology by computed tomography (CT) were measured pre- and post sulforaphane consumption.
Results
Sulforaphane ameliorated the bronchoconstrictor effects of MCh on FEV1 significantly (on average by 21 %; p = 0.01) in 60 % of these asthmatics. Interestingly, in 20 % of the asthmatics, sulforaphane aggravated the bronchoconstrictor effects of MCh and in a similar number was without effect, documenting the great heterogeneity of the responsiveness of these individuals to sulforaphane. Moreover, in individuals in whom the FEV1 response to MCh challenge decreased after sulforaphane administration, i.e., sulforaphane was protective, the activities of Nrf2-regulated antioxidant and anti-inflammatory genes decreased. In contrast, individuals in whom sulforaphane treatment enhanced the FEV1 response to MCh, had increased expression of the activities of these genes. High resolution CT scans disclosed that in asthmatics sulforaphane treatment resulted in a significant reduction in specific airway resistance and also increased small airway luminal area and airway trapping modestly but significantly.
Conclusion
These findings suggest the potential value of blocking the bronchoconstrictor hyperresponsiveness in some types of asthmatics by phytochemicals such as sulforaphane.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.