4.7 Article

Circulating monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 and early development of nephropathy in type 1 diabetes

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 25, 期 10, 页码 1829-1834

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.25.10.1829

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives - To investigate the possible role of hyperglycemia-dependent monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)-1 biosynthesis in the pathophysiology of early nephropathy in type 1 diabetes. Research Design and Methods - We studied 30 patients with type 1 diabetes (15 with and 15 without microalbuminuria) compared with matched healthy control subjects. Plasma MCP-1 and plasma oxidant status (vitamin E, fluorescent products of lipid peroxidation [FPLPs], malondialdehyde [MDA]), HbA(lc), and albumin excretion rate [AER]) were evaluated at baseline. Furthermore, MCP-1, vitamin E, AER, and HbA(lc) were also analyzed in the microalbuminuric diabetic patients and in the healthy volunteers after 8 weeks of high-dose (600 mg b.i.d.) vitamin E treatment. Results - FPLPs, MDA, and MCP-1 were significantly higher, whereas vitamin E was significantly lower in patients with microalbuminuria and poorer glycemic control as compared with normoalbuminuric patients and healthy control subjects. Plasma MCP-1 was positively correlated with HbA(lc), FPLPs, MDA, and AER, whereas plasma MCP-1 showed an inverse correlation with vitamin E. Interestingly, both MCP-1 and AER decreased significantly after vitamin E treatment, despite no changes in HbA(lc) values. Conclusions - This study suggests that prolonged hyperglycemia may lead to early renal complications in type 1 diabetes by inducing MCP-1 biosynthesis via enhanced oxidative stress. Long-term treatment of high-dose vitamin E significantly decreased MCP-1, thus providing a rationale basis for evaluating vitamin E supplementation as therapy adjuvant to conventional insulin treatment in type 1 diabetic patients in whom an acceptable glycemic control is difficult to achieve despite appropriate insulin treatment.

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