4.5 Article

Levels of Metals in the Blood and Specific Porphyrins in the Urine in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

期刊

BIOLOGICAL TRACE ELEMENT RESEARCH
卷 163, 期 1-2, 页码 2-10

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s12011-014-0121-6

关键词

Autism; Neurodevelopmental; Children; Metals; Zinc; Copper

资金

  1. Slovenian Research Agency [J3-9470-0312-06]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present study was to determine the levels of metals in blood (zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), aluminium (Al), lead (Pb) and mercury (Hg)), as well as the specific porphyrin levels in the urine of patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) compared with patients with other neurological disorders. The study was performed in a group of children with ASD (N = 52, average age = 6.2 years) and a control group of children with other neurological disorders (N = 22, average age = 6.6 years), matched in terms of intellectual abilities (Mann-Whitney U = 565.0, p = 0.595). Measurement of metals in blood was performed by atomic absorption spectrometry, while the HPLC method via a fluorescence detector was used to test urinary porphyrin levels. Results were compared across groups using a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA). In addition, a generalized linear model was used to establish the impact of group membership on the blood Cu/Zn ratio. In terms of blood levels of metals, no significant difference between the groups was found. However, compared to the control group, ASD group had significantly elevated blood Cu/Zn ratio (Wald chi (2) = 6.6, df = 1, p = 0.010). Additionally, no significant difference between the groups was found in terms of uroporphyrin I, heptacarboxyporphyrin I, hexacarboxyporphyrin and pentacarboxyporphyrin I. However, the levels of coproporphyrin I and coproporphyrin III were lower in the ASD group compared to the controls. Due to observed higher Cu/Zn ratio, it is suggested to test blood levels of Zn and Cu in all autistic children and give them a Zn supplement if needed.

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