4.7 Article

Urinary insulin-like growth factor-I measurement in an actual sport competition, an additional approach in laboratory antidoping tests

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 351, 期 1-2, 页码 73-78

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cccn.2004.06.023

关键词

urinary protein; plasma/urine ratio; glomerular filtration; exercise; IGF excretion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The insulin-like growth factor hormone (IGF-I) is an important protein hormone under investigation with physical exercise and for doping detection. Urinary lGF-I level in fact represents a relevant measurement when the postexercise proteinuria is under analysis. To verify the lGF-I level variation in the circulation and in urinary excretion in the occasion of a competition, the plasma and urine lGF-I in athletes before and after an actual competitive event were measured. Methods: Twenty well-trained cyclists took part in a competition (102 km) and concluded the intense physical exercise in approximately 2(1/2) h. Urine and blood samples were collected from each athlete 10-20 min before and at the end of the competition. Plasma and urine total lGF-I (plGF, ulGF), total urinary proteins (uPr), and creatinine (uCr) concentrations were measured. Results: The ulGF [from 76.2 +/- 15.8 to 256.9 +/- 29.1 ng/l (p<0.001)], uPr [from 29.4 +/- 6.7 to 325.9 +/- 95.1 mg/l (p<0.005)], and uCr [from 6.3 +/- 1.0 to 10.0 +/- 0.8 mmol/l (p<0.005)] significantly increased. The plGF was 262.6 +/- 14.3 and 247.3 +/- 11.8 mug/l before and end-exercise, respectively. A statistical correlation between ulGF and uPr was demonstrated (p<0.001). The pIGF/ ulGF ratio was significantly (p<0.05) decreased comparing the end with before the competition. Conclusions: The pIGF/ulGF significantly decreased at the end, compared with before the competition, suggesting a changed uIGF excretion. This increment appeared to be increased, although not significantly, considering the ratio with uCr. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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