4.4 Article

Identification and assessment of markers of biotin status in healthy adults

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 110, 期 2, 页码 321-329

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0007114512005065

关键词

Biotin status assessment; Carboxylases; Gene expression; Organic acids

资金

  1. Hatch Act
  2. National Institutes of Health [DK063945, DK077816, DK082476]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human biotin requirements are unknown and the identification of reliable markers of biotin status is necessary to fill this knowledge gap. Here, we used an outpatient feeding protocol to create states of biotin deficiency, sufficiency and supplementation in sixteen healthy men and women. A total of twenty possible markers of biotin status were assessed, including the abundance of biotinylated carboxylases in lymphocytes, the expression of genes from biotin metabolism and the urinary excretion of biotin and organic acids. Only the abundance of biotinylated 3-methylcrotonyl-CoA carboxylase (holo-MCC) and propionyl-CoA carboxylase (holo-PCC) allowed for distinguishing biotin-deficient and biotin-sufficient individuals. The urinary excretion of biotin reliably identified biotin-supplemented subjects, but did not distinguish between biotin-depleted and biotin-sufficient individuals. The urinary excretion of 3-hydroxyisovaleric acid detected some biotin-deficient subjects, but produced a meaningful number of false-negative results and did not distinguish between biotin-sufficient and biotin-supplemented individuals. None of the other organic acids that were tested were useful markers of biotin status. Likewise, the abundance of mRNA coding for biotin transporters, holocarboxylase synthetase and biotin-dependent carboxylases in lymphocytes were not different among the treatment groups. Generally, datasets were characterised by variations that exceeded those seen in studies in cell cultures. We conclude that holo-MCC and holo-PCC are the most reliable, single markers of biotin status tested in the present study.

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

4.4
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