4.5 Article

eNOS gene polymorphisms modify the association of PM10 with oxidative stress

期刊

TOXICOLOGY LETTERS
卷 214, 期 3, 页码 263-267

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2012.09.006

关键词

PM10; Elderly; eNOS; Genetic polymorphism; Oxidative stress

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Republic of Korea [2011-0005907]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies have suggested that air pollution increases various health outcomes through oxidative stress and oxidative stress-related genes modify the relationship between air pollution and health outcomes. Therefore, we evaluated the effect of PM10 on the levels of malondialdehyde (MDA), oxidative stress biomarker, and the effect modification by genetic polymorphisms of eNOS, oxidative stress-related gene, in the 560 Korean elderly. We obtained urine samples repeatedly from participants during five medical examinations between 2008 and 2010 and all ambient air pollutant concentration data from the Korea National Institute of Environmental Research air quality monitoring system. We measured urinary levels of MDA to assess oxidative stress and genotyped eNOS (rs1799983, rs2853796, and rs7830). Mixed-effect model was used to estimate the effect of PM10 on the level of oxidative stress biomarker and their modification by genotypes. PM10 showed apparent positive effect on MDA level after adjusting for age, sex, BMI, cotinine level, temperature, dew point, levels of SO2, O-3, NO2, and CO, and season (p = 0.0133). Moreover, the association of PM10 with MDA was found only in participants with eNOS GG genotype for rs1799983 (p = 0.0107), TT genotype for rs2853796 (p = 0.0289), or GT genotype for rs7830 (p = 0.0158) and in participants with a set of risky haplotypes (GTT, GTG, GGT, and TGT) (p = 0.0093). Our results suggest that PM10 affect oxidative stress in the elderly and eNOS genotype affect the oxidative stress level in regard of exposure to PM10. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.5
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