4.4 Article

β-Casomorphins-7 in infants on different type of feeding and different levels of psychomotor development

期刊

PEPTIDES
卷 30, 期 10, 页码 1854-1860

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.peptides.2009.06.025

关键词

beta-Casomorphins-7; Infants; Breast feeding; Formula feeding; Psychomotor development; Muscle tone

资金

  1. Russian Foundation [06-04-08257]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Casomorphins are the most important during the first year of life, when postnatal formation is most active and milk is the main source of both nutritive and biologically active material for infants. This study was conducted on a total of 90 infants, of which 37 were fed with breast milk and 53 were fed with formula containing cow milk. The study has firstly indicated substances with immunoreactivity of human (irHCM) and bovine (irBCM) beta-casomorphins-7 in blood plasma of naturally and artificially fed infants, respectively. irHCM and irBCM were detected both in the morning before feeding (basal level), and 3 h after feeding. Elevation of irHCM and irBCM levels after feeding was detected mainly in infants in the first 3 months of life. Chromatographic characterization of the material with irBCM has demonstrated that it has the same molecular mass and polarity as synthetic bovine beta-casomorphin-7. The highest basal irHCM was observed in breast-fed infants with normal psychomotor development and muscle tone. In contrast, elevated basal irBCM was found in formula-fed infants showing delay in psychomotor development and heightened muscle tone. Among formula-fed infants with normal development, the rate of this parameter directly correlated to basal irBCM. The data indicate that breast feeding has an advantage over artificial feeding for infants' development during the first year of life and support the hypothesis for deterioration of bovine casomorphin elimination as a risk factor for delay in psychomotor development and other diseases such as autism. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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