4.2 Article

Oxidative stress assessment by glutathione peroxidase activity and glutathione levels in response to selenium supplementation in patients with Mucopolysaccharidosis I, II and VI

期刊

GENETICS AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 42, 期 1, 页码 1-8

出版社

SOC BRASIL GENETICA
DOI: 10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2017-0334

关键词

Mucopolysaccharidosis; oxidative stress; selenium; glutathione peroxidase

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  2. Conselho Nacional de Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  3. Associacao Fundo de Incentivo a Pesquisa (AFIP)
  4. Instituto de Genetica e Erros Inatos do Metabolismo (IGEIM), Sao Paulo, Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We assessed levels of plasma selenium (Se), selenoproteins and their change after Se supplementation in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) types I, II and VI. This was done in a retrospective study of the medical records of 30 patients with MPS I (n=13), MPS II (n=9) and MPS VI (n=8) who were being treated with enzyme replacement therapy. As part of routine nutritional monitoring, Se levels were measured, revealing that 28 patients (93.3%) had values below the normal range. Therefore, they received supplementation for 12 months, and Se was measured after 6 and 12 months. Glutathione peroxidase (GPx) activity, total glutathione (GSHt), oxidized glutathione (GSSG) and reduced glutathione (GSH) were measured at baseline and 6 months after Se supplementation. The mean GSHt at baseline was 7.90 +/- 2.36 mu mol/g Hb, and after Se supplementation it was 5.76 +/- 1.13 mu mol/g Hb; GSH/GSSG was 2.3 +/- 1.16 at baseline and 0.58 +/- 0.38 after supplementation. GPx activity was 16.46 +/- 3.31 U/g Hb at baseline and 4.53 +/- 4.92 U/g Hb after Se supplementation. The difference was shown to be statistically significant by paired t-test. In conclusion, our study demonstrated that oxidative stress parameters were altered by Se supplementation in patients with MPS I, II and VI who were previously deficient in Se.

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

4.2
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