4.6 Article

Asthma Prevalence Associated with Geographical Latitude and Regional Insolation in the United States of America and Australia

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018492

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: It has been proposed that vitamin D deficiency may be responsible for an increase in the prevalence of allergic diseases and asthma worldwide. Human ability to generate physiologically required quantities of vitamin D through sun exposure is decreasing with increasing geographical latitude. Objectives: Considering that vitamin D deficiency is usually due to lack of outdoor sun exposure, this study is designed to test the hypothesis that a higher prevalence of asthma should be expected at high relative to low geographical latitudes. Methods: Linear regression analyses are performed on asthma prevalence in the U. S. adult population vs. geographical latitude, insolation, air temperature, and air pollution (PM2.5) for 97 major metropolitan/micropolitan statistical areas of the continental United States of America and on general population asthma prevalence vs. geographical latitude in eight metropolitan areas of Australia. Results: A 10 degrees change in geographical latitude from southern to northern regions of the Eastern Seaboard is associated with a 2% increase in adult asthma prevalence (p < 0.001). Total insolation in winter months is almost as strong as latitude in its ability to explain the observed spatial variation in the prevalence of asthma (r(2) = 0.43; p < 0.001). Similar results are obtained using the Australian data (r(2) = 0.73; p < 0.01), suggesting a consistent association between the latitude/insolation and asthma prevalence worldwide. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that, as a known modulator of the immune response closely linked with the geographical latitude and erythemal UV irradiation, vitamin D may play an important role in the development/exacerbation of asthma.

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

4.6
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