4.7 Review

Urinary biomarkers of oxidative status

Journal

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 413, Issue 19-20, Pages 1446-1453

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2012.06.012

Keywords

Oxidative stress; F2-Isoprostanes; Malondialdehyde; 8-oxodG; Allantoin; Dityrosine

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [5P50CA108786, 1R01DK081028, 5R25-CA126938-02]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Oxidative damage produced by reactive oxygen species (ROS) has been implicated in the etiology and pathology of many health conditions, including a large number of chronic diseases. Urinary biomarkers of oxidative status present a great opportunity to study redox balance in human populations. With urinary biomarkers, specimen collection is non-invasive and the organic/metal content is low, which minimizes the artifactual formation of oxidative damage to molecules in specimens. Also, urinary levels of the biomarkers present intergraded indices of redox balance over a longer period of time compared to blood levels. This review summarizes the criteria for evaluation of biomarkers applicable to epidemiological studies and evaluation of several classes of biomarkers that are formed non-enzymatically: oxidative damage to lipids, proteins, DNA, and allantoin, an oxidative product of uric acid. The review considers formation, metabolism, and exertion of each biomarker, available data on validation in animal and clinical models of oxidative stress, analytical approaches, and their intra- and inter-individual variation. The recommended biomarkers for monitoring oxidative status over time are F-2-isoprostanes and 8-oxodG. For inter-individual comparisons. F-2-isoprostanes are recommended, whereas urinary 8-oxodG levels may be confounded by differences in the DNA repair capacity. Promising urinary biomarkers include allantoin, acrolein-lysine, and dityrosine. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available