4.7 Article

The association between plasma selenium and chronic kidney disease related to lead, cadmium and arsenic exposure in a Taiwanese population

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 375, 期 -, 页码 224-232

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.04.082

关键词

Selenium; Cadmium; Lead; Arsenic; Arsenic methylation capacity; Chronic kidney disease

资金

  1. National Science Council, Taiwan [NSC 100-2314-B-038 -026, NSC 101-2314-B-038-051-MY3 (1-3), NSC 101-2314-B-038 -051-MY3 (2-3), NSC 101-2314-B-038 -051-MY3 (3-3)]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [MOST103-2314-B-038-021-MY2 (1-2), MOST103-2314-B-038-021-MY2 (2-2), MOST 105-2314-B-038-082, MOST 106-2314-B-038-066, MOST 107-2314-B-038-073]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to determine the interaction of red blood cell cadmium and lead, total urinary arsenic, and plasma selenium in chronic kidney disease (CKD). We recruited 220 CKD patients as well as 438 gender- and age matched controls, and we defined CKD as < 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) for three or more consecutive months. Plasma selenium and red blood cell cadmium and lead concentrations were measured by ICP-MS. Urinary arsenic species were determined via HPLC-HG-AAS and were summed to determine the total urinary arsenic concentration. Plasma selenium was positively correlated to eGFR, and subjects with high plasma selenium levels (> 243.90 mu g/L) had a significantly lower odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.23, 0.13-0.42) for CKD compared to those with low plasma selenium levels (<= 196.70 mu g/L). High plasma selenium and low red blood cell cadmium or lead concentrations interacted to decrease the OR and 95% CI for CKD (0.12, 0.06-0.26; 0.09, 0.04-0.19). High plasma selenium and low red blood cell lead levels also interacted to increase the eGFR (20.70, 15.56-26.01 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). This study is the first to suggest that selenium modifies the eGFR and OR in CKD induced by environmental toxicants.

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