4.5 Article

The relationship between interleukin-6 in saliva, venous and capillary plasma, at rest and in response to exercise

期刊

CYTOKINE
卷 71, 期 2, 页码 397-400

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cyto.2014.10.011

关键词

Interluekin-6; Cytokines; Exercise; Capillary; Saliva

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IL-6 plays a mechanistic role in conditions such as metabolic syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome and clinical depression and also plays a major role in inflammatory and immune responses to exercise. The purpose of this study was to investigate the levels of resting and post exercise IL-6 when measured in venous plasma, saliva and capillary plasma. Five male and five females completed 2 separate exercise trials, both of which involved standardized exercise sessions on a cycle ergometer. Venous blood and saliva samples were taken immediately before and after Trial A, venous and capillary blood samples were taken immediately before and after Trial B. IL-6 values were obtained using a high-sensitivity enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). In Trial A venous plasma IL-6 increased significantly from 0.4 +/- 0.14 pg/ml to 0.99 +/- 0.29 pg/ml (P < 0.01) while there was no increase in salivary IL-6. Venous plasma and salivary IL-6 responses were not correlated at rest, post exercise or when expressed as an exercise induced change. In Trial B venous and capillary plasma IL-6 increased significantly (venous: 0.22 +/- 0.18 to 0.74 +/- 0.28 pg/ml (P 0.01); capillary: 0.37 +/- 0.22 to 1.08 +/- 0.30 pg/ml (P < 0.01). Venous and capillary plasma responses did not correlate at rest (r = 0.59, P = 0.07) but did correlate post exercise (r = 0.79, P >= 0.001) and when expressed as an exercise induced change (r = 0.71, P = 0.02). Saliva does not appear to reflect systemic IL-6 responses, either at rest or in response to exercise. Conversely, capillary plasma responses are reflective of systemic IL-6 responses to exercise. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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