4.5 Review Book Chapter

Direct and Functional Biomarkers of Vitamin B6 Status

期刊

ANNUAL REVIEW OF NUTRITION, VOL 35
卷 35, 期 -, 页码 33-70

出版社

ANNUAL REVIEWS
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-nutr-071714-034330

关键词

direct biomarkers; functional biomarkers; B6 vitamers; transaminase tests; kynurenines; amino acids; transsulfuration metabolites; one-carbon metabolites; targeted metabolic profiling; metabolomics

资金

  1. Norwegian Cancer Society
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01 DK-072398]
  3. NATIONAL CENTER FOR ADVANCING TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES [UL1TR000064] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R01DK072398] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Measures of B6 status are categorized as direct biomarkers and as functional biomarkers. Direct biomarkers measure B6 vitamers in plasma/serum, urine and erythrocytes, and among these plasma pyridoxal 5' -phosphate (PLP) is most commonly used. Functional biomarkers include erythrocyte transaminase activities and, more recently, plasma levels of metabolites involved in PLP-dependent reactions, such as the kynurenine pathway, one-carbon metabolism, transsulfuration (cystathionine), and glycine decarboxylation (serine and glycine). Vitamin B6 status is best assessed by using a combination of biomarkers because of the influence of potential confounders, such as inflammation, alkaline phosphatase activity, low serum albumin, renal function, and inorganic phosphate. Ratios between substrate-products pairs have recently been investigated as a strategy to attenuate such influence. These efforts have provided promising new markers such as the PAr index, the 3-hydroxykynurenine: xanthurenic acid ratio, and the oxoglutarate: glutamate ratio. Targeted metabolic profiling or untargeted metabolomics based on mass spectrometry allow the simultaneous quantification of a large number of metabolites, which are currently evaluated as functional biomarkers, using data reduction statistics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据