4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Exchangeable zinc pool masses and turnover are maintained in healthy men with low zinc intakes

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
Volume 131, Issue 9, Pages 2288-2294

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jn/131.9.2288

Keywords

zinc; zinc depletion; tracer kinetics; exchangeable zinc pools; humans

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous studies suggest that rapidly exchanging zinc pools (EZP), thought to supply the zinc required by tissues, are smaller and turn over more rapidly in individuals with lower zinc intakes. We studied the effects of low dietary zinc (4.6 mg/d) on EZP mass and turnover in seven healthy men confined during a 20-wk clinical study. Supplements of 9.1 mg zinc were given during the 5-wk baseline and repletion periods, and placebos were given during a 10-wk zinc-restriction period. Stable Zn-70 tracers were administered intravenously at the end of baseline, 3 and 10 wk after the start of zinc restriction and at the end of repletion. Multiple plasma samples were collected over an 8-d period after tracer administration. Zn-70:Zn-66 ratios were measured using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, and tracer-tracee data were analyzed by compartmental modeling. Activities of the zinc-dependent enzymes, alkaline phosphatase and 5 ' nucleotidase, were unchanged during the study. There were no significant changes in EZP masses or kinetic parameters. A three-compartment model indicated that the masses of plasma zinc and total EZP averaged 3.25 +/- 0.58 and 147.8 +/- 33.2 mg, respectively, at the four time points studied. Plasma zinc mass turned over at an average of 5.3 times per hour. There was an 11% reduction (P = 0.06) in plasma zinc flux 3 wk after the start of the low zinc diet period, but it returned to baseline values after 10 wk of zinc restriction. The results suggest that total EZP mass is maintained when dietary zinc is reduced to 4.6 mg/d over a 10-wk period.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available