4.5 Article

Randomized controlled trial of oral glutathione supplementation on body stores of glutathione

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 54, 期 2, 页码 251-263

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00394-014-0706-z

关键词

Glutathione; Supplementation; Antioxidant; Immune function

资金

  1. Kyowa Hakko Bio Co., Ltd
  2. Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute through the Clinical Correlative Immunology Laboratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glutathione (GSH), the most abundant endogenous antioxidant, is a critical regulator of oxidative stress and immune function. While oral GSH has been shown to be bioavailable in laboratory animal models, its efficacy in humans has not been established. Our objective was to determine the long-term effectiveness of oral GSH supplementation on body stores of GSH in healthy adults. A 6-month randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of oral GSH (250 or 1,000 mg/day) on GSH levels in blood, erythrocytes, plasma, lymphocytes and exfoliated buccal mucosal cells was conducted in 54 non-smoking adults. Secondary outcomes on a subset of subjects included a battery of immune markers. GSH levels in blood increased after 1, 3 and 6 months versus baseline at both doses. At 6 months, mean GSH levels increased 30-35 % in erythrocytes, plasma and lymphocytes and 260 % in buccal cells in the high-dose group (P < 0.05). GSH levels increased 17 and 29 % in blood and erythrocytes, respectively, in the low-dose group (P < 0.05). In most cases, the increases were dose and time dependent, and levels returned to baseline after a 1-month washout period. A reduction in oxidative stress in both GSH dose groups was indicated by decreases in the oxidized to reduced glutathione ratio in whole blood after 6 months. Natural killer cytotoxicity increased > twofold in the high-dose group versus placebo (P < 0.05) at 3 months. These findings show, for the first time, that daily consumption of GSH supplements was effective at increasing body compartment stores of GSH.

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