4.5 Article

Antioxidants, oxidative stress, and pulmonary function in individuals diagnosed with asthma or COPD

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 60, 期 8, 页码 991-999

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602410

关键词

forced expiratory volume; vital capacity; glutathione; glutathione peroxidase; oxidative stress; TBARS

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R03 HL066539] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAAA NIH HHS [AA-0902] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the association between antioxidant nutrients and markers of oxidative stress with pulmonary function in persons with chronic airflow limitation. Design: Cross-sectional study exploring the association of antioxidant nutrients and markers of oxidative stress with forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1%) and forced vital capacity (FVC%). Setting/Subjects: The study data included 218 persons with chronic airflow limitation recruited randomly from the general population of Erie and Niagara counties, New York State, USA. Results: After adjustment for covariates, multiple linear regression analysis showed that serum beta-cryptoxanthin, lutein/ zeaxanthin, and retinol, and dietary beta-carotene, beta-cryptoxanthin, lutein/zeaxanthin, vitamin C, and lycopene were positively associated with FEV1% (P < 0.05, all associations). Serum vitamins beta-cryptoxanthin, lutein/zeaxanthin, and lycopene, and dietary beta-cryptoxanthin, beta-carotene, vitamin C, and lutein/zeaxanthin were positively associated with FVC% (P < 0.05, all associations). Erythrocytic glutathione was negatively associated with FEV1%, while plasma thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARS) were negatively associated with FVC% (P < 0.05). Conclusion: These results support the hypothesis that an imbalance in antioxidant/oxidant status is associated with chronic airflow limitation, and that dietary habits and/or oxidative stress play contributing roles.

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