4.7 Article

Chronic exposure to xenobiotic pollution leads to significantly higher total glutathione and lower reduced to oxidized glutathione ratio in red blood cells of children with autism

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 134, 期 -, 页码 666-677

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2019.02.009

关键词

Autism; Glutathione; GSH; GSSG; Oxidative stress; EPA method 6800; IDMS; SIDMS; Quantitative mass spectrometry

资金

  1. Heinz Endowments
  2. Richard King Mellon Foundation
  3. U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration [HRSA R1CRH20683]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analyses of reduced glutathione (GSH), oxidized glutathione (GSSG), and total glutathione (tGSH) in red blood cell samples from 30 children diagnosed with autism and 30 age, gender, and socioeconomic status matched controls were undertaken. The children's ages ranged from 2 to 9. Samples were obtained from subjects residing in Western Pennsylvania, an area of the United States greatly affected by high levels of mercury deposition and airborne PM 2.5 particulates. Liquid chromatography - mass spectrometry was utilized by following EPA Method 6800 for sample analyses. The children with autism had a significantly lower mean red blood cell (RBC) reduced to oxidized glutathione ratio (GSH/GSSG) compared to the control children (p = 0.025). In addition, compared to the controls, the children with autism had significantly higher RBC tGSH values (p = 0.0076) and GSH values (p = 0.022). These results suggest that exposure to toxic elements may prompt compensatory increases in production of GSH in children with autism in environments higher in toxins. The compensation did not fully correct the anti-oxidant properties of exposure to xenobiotics as demonstrated by the significantly lower GSH/GSSG in children with autism compared to controls. Out of a set of glutathione biomarkers, GSH/GSSG may best determine the degree of compensation for oxidative stress in children with autism.

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

4.7
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