4.6 Article

Dietary Vitamin C Intake Reduces the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in Chinese Adults: HOMA-IR and T-AOC as Potential Mediators

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163571

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81130049, 81573134, 81202282]
  2. Public Health School of Harbin Medical University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite growing interest in the protective role that dietary antioxidant vitamins may have in the development of type 2 diabetes (T2D), little epidemiological evidence is available in non-Western populations especially about the possible mediators underlying in this role. The present study aimed to investigate the association of vitamin C and vitamin E intakes with T2D risk in Chinese adults and examine the potential mediators. 178 incident T2D cases among 3483 participants in the Harbin People Health Study (HPHS), and 522 newly diagnosed T2D among 7595 participants in the Harbin Cohort Study on Diet, Nutrition and Chronic Non-communicable Diseases (HDNNCDS) were studied. In the multivariable-adjusted logistics regression model, the relative risks (RRs) were 1.00, 0.75, and 0.76 (P-trend = 0.003) across tertiles of vitamin C intake in the HDNNCDS, and this association was validated in the HPHS with RRs of 1.00, 0.47, and 0.46 (P-trend = 0.002). The RRs were 1.00, 0.72, and 0.76 (P-trend = 0.039) when T2D diagnosed by haemoglobin A(1c) in the HDNNCDS. The mediation analysis discovered that insulin resistance (indicated by homeostasis model assessment) and oxidative stress (indicated by plasma total antioxidative capacity) partly mediated this association. But no association was evident between vitamin E intake and T2D. In conclusion, our research adds further support to the role of vitamin C intake in reducing the development of T2D in the broader population studied. The results also suggested that this association was partly mediated by inhibiting or ameliorating oxidative stress and insulin resistance.

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