4.6 Review

Existing knowledge on Zn status biomarkers (1963-2021) with a particular focus on FADS1 and FADS2 diagnostic performance and recommendations for further research

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NUTRITION
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2022.1057156

关键词

Zn biomarkers; plasma; serum Zn; LA; DGLA; desaturases; thymulin; dietary Zn intake

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The lack of a sensitive and specific biomarker of zinc status remains a challenge despite extensive efforts in researching the role of zinc in human health. Plasma/serum zinc is currently the best indicator of zinc status but may fail to detect mild to moderate deficiency. This paper discusses the need for robust markers of early-stage zinc deficiency, the causal association between zinc and fatty acid desaturases activity, and potential confounders and covariates influencing observed relationships. It also suggests further research in this area and explores additional potential zinc biomarkers.
The role of Zn in human health was discovered 60 years ago, and despite remarkable research efforts, a sufficiently sensitive and specific biomarker of Zn status is still lacking. Plasma/serum Zn, currently the best available and most accepted population Zn status indicator, responds well to severe Zn deficiency, yet, mild to moderate Zn deficiency states usually remain unrecognized. Identifying early-stage Zn deficiency requires additional robust markers of Zn status. This paper discusses the sensitivity, specificity, and responsiveness of plasma Zn concentrations to Zn interventions. It describes the biochemical and dietary basis for the causal association between Zn and fatty acid desaturases activity, FADS1 and FADS2, based on data collected through studies performed in animals and/or humans. The influence of potential confounders and covariates on the observed relationships is considered. Additional potential Zn biomarkers are discussed and suggestions for further research in this area are provided.

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

4.6
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