4.4 Article

Free 3-nitrotyrosine in exhaled breath condensates of children fails as a marker for oxidative stress in stable cystic fibrosis and asthma

Journal

NITRIC OXIDE-BIOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 226-232

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.niox.2006.06.008

Keywords

3-nitrotyrosine; exhaled breath condensate; mass spectrometry; asthma; cystic fibrosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

3-Nitrotyrosine (3-NT) is considered as a marker of oxidative stress, which occurs during inflammation. Since 3-NT levels in exhaled breath condensate (EBC) are very low, we applied a specific and sensitive gas chromatography-negative ion chemical ionization-mass spectrometry (GC-NICI-MS) method and high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with electrochemical detection for the analysis of free 3-NT in EBC. A total of 42 children (aged 5-17 years) were enrolled in this study, including children with asthma (n = 12), cystic fibrosis (n = 12), and healthy controls (n = 18). Additionally, 14 healthy non-smoking adults (aged 18-59 years) were included. An EcoScreen system was used for the collection of EBC samples. Free 3-NT levels in EBC ranged from 0.54-6.8 nM. Median (interquartile range) concentrations (nM) were similar in all groups: 1.46 (0.97-2.49) in healthy adults, 2.51 (1.22-3.51) in healthy children, 1.46 (0.88-2.02) in children with asthma, and 1.97 (1.37-2.35) in CF children, respectively (p = 0.24, Kruskall-Walis test). No difference was found between the children with airway disease and age-matched healthy controls. In healthy subjects, there was no effect of age on 3-NT concentrations. HPLC analyses provided similar concentration ranges for EBC 3-NT when compared with GC-NICI-MS. Our study has clearly demonstrated that free 3-NT in EBC fails as a marker for oxidative stress in children with stable CF and asthma. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available