4.6 Article

Serum carotenoids and vitamins in relation to markers of endothelial function and inflammation

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 19, 期 10, 页码 915-921

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10654-004-5760-z

关键词

carotenoids; endothelial function; humans; inflammation; vitamins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Endothelial cell dysfunction may be related to an increase in cellular oxidative stress. Carotenoids and vitamins could have an antioxidant-mediated tempering influence on endothelial function and inflammation, thereby reducing the risk of atherosclerosis. Methods: We measured serum carotenoids, alpha-tocopherol and Vitamin C concentrations in 379 subjects sampled from the general population. High-sensitive C-reactive protein (CRP), fibrinogen (Fbg) and leukocytes were measured as markers of inflammation. Furthermore, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM- 1) and flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD; n = 165) were measured as markers of endothelial function. Relationships between serum carotenoids and vitamins and markers of endothelial function and inflammation were analysed after adjustment for confounding. Results: In the total study group, lutein and lycopene were inversely related to sICAM- 1 with regression-coefficients of -0.38 +/- 0.19 (p = 0.04) and) 0.16 +/- 0.08 (p = 0.04) per 1 mumol/l, respectively. beta-Carotene was inverse related to leukocytes (-0.23 +/- 0.07; p = 0.007) and CRP (-1.09 +/- 0.30; p = 0.0003) per 1 mumol/l. Vitamin C was inverse related to CRP (-0.01 +/- 0.005; p = 0.04) per 1 mumol/l, whereas alpha-tocopherol was positively related to CRP (0.03 +/- 0.01; p = 0.02) per 1 mu/l. Zeaxanthin was inversely related to FMD (31.2 +/- 15.3; p = 0.04) per 1 mumol/l. Conclusion: The inverse relations between carotenoids, Vitamin C and sICAM- 1, CRP and leukocytes may help to explain the possible protective effect of carotenoids and Vitamin C on atherosclerosis through an influence on inflammatory processes and endothelial function.

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