Ivonne M. Gutiérrez Zorrilla, Nataly D. Bernuy-Osorio, Otto Zea Mendoza, Carlos Vílchez-Perales

We aimed to determine the effect of the consumption of three sources of fatty acids on the relative weight, macroscopic and microscopic characteristics of the liver, and intestinal morphometry in an early-life animal model. Seventy-six randomly distributed chicks received one of the diets (T1: 97.0% basal diet (BD) + 3.0% inert material, T2: 97.0% BD + 3.0% partially hydrogenated vegetable shortening, T3: 97.0% BD + 3.0% quinoa oil, and T4: 97.0% BD + 3.0% fish oil) until the seventh day of life; samples were then extracted in order to be analyzed. We found that the animals that consumed quinoa oil (T3) or fish oil (T4) had favorable results associated to lower liver weight and better absorption of nutrients at intestinal level due to higher values in the hair length and crypt depth ratio, in comparison to partially hydrogenated vegetable shortening (T2). In conclusion, quinoa oil constitutes a healthy option for consumption and an alternative source to fish oil.

Background/Objective: Hypertension is a leading preventable cause of cardiovascular disease, affecting over one billion people worldwide. Berry-derived bioactive compounds may influence vascular function and blood pressure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effects of oral berry supplementation on blood pressure in adults with elevated blood pressure or hypertension and additionally assessed its effects on related cardiometabolic outcomes. Methods: PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, and Scopus were searched from inception to May 2025. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adults with hypertension or elevated blood pressure who received oral berry supplementation compared with placebo, standard diet without berries or usual care. Design-specific analytical strategies were employed to preserve within-participant comparisons in cross-over trials. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted using the restricted maximum likelihood estimator, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. PROSPERO registration: CRD420251046489. Results: Nine RCTs (547 participants) were included. Berry supplementation did not significantly reduce resting systolic (MD −2.35 mmHg; 95% CI −4.98 to 0.29; I² = 65%) or diastolic blood pressure (MD −1.04 mmHg; 95% CI −2.38 to 0.76; I² = 60%). A significant reduction in 24 h ambulatory diastolic blood pressure was observed (MD −1.11 mmHg; 95% CI −2.04 to −0.17; I² = 0%), driven by cross-over trials. No significant effects were found for vascular, lipid, or inflammatory markers. Certainty of evidence was low to very low across all outcomes. Conclusions: Current evidence does not support a consistent effect of berry supplementation on blood pressure or related cardiometabolic outcomes in this population, given the low to very low certainty of the available evidence.