4.7 Article

Dysmetabolisms Can Affect Total Antioxidant Capacity (TAC) of Human Plasma: Determination of Reference Intervals of TAC by Way of CUPRAC-BCS Method

期刊

ANTIOXIDANTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antiox10010058

关键词

total antioxidant capacity; reference intervals; CUPRAC; human plasma; healthy population; dysmetabolism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to define the reference intervals for TAC of human plasma in apparently healthy adults using the CUPRAC-BCS method. The results showed that the reference intervals for TAC in males and females were 727-1248 and 637-1048 respectively, with no significant age effect on TAC values.
The total antioxidant capacity (TAC) of human plasma is an index of the redox buffer capacity of this biological fluid and could be a biomarker for those disorders affecting redox status. Distinguishing physiological from pathological conditions needs a reference. Therefore, this work aims to define the reference intervals for TAC of human plasma of apparently healthy adult individuals. TAC was measured using the CUPRAC-BCS (CUPric reducing antioxidant capacity-bathocuproinedisulfonic acid) method previously optimized and tested in a clinical laboratory. A population of 500 blood donors was selected, plus an additional 222 pathological patients carrying specific defective metabolisms, namely, hyperuricemia, hyperbilirubinemia, and type 2 diabetic mellitus. The reference intervals of TAC were calculated according to international guidelines. Due to the response of a partitioning test, the reference intervals for healthy population were separately defined for male (258) and female (151) groups. The reference intervals (mu mol L-1) resulted: 727-1248 for the male subgroup and 637-1048 for the female subgroup. The absence of an age effect on TAC values was verified. The reference intervals evaluated allow a discussion on some pathological conditions overloading the plasma with redox-active waste substances.

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