4.7 Article

Phytoestrogen Concentrations in Human Urine as Biomarkers for Dietary Phytoestrogen Intake in Mexican Women

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/nu9101078

关键词

phytoestrogen intake; urinary excretion; biomarker; Mexican women

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACYT) [CB-2008-01-106028]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There has been substantial interest in phytoestrogens, because of their potential effect in reducing cancer and heart disease risk. Measuring concentrations of phytoestrogens in urine is an alternative method for conducting epidemiological studies. Our objective was to evaluate the urinary excretion of phytoestrogens as biomarkers for dietary phytoestrogen intake in Mexican women. Participants were 100 healthy women from 25 to 80 years of age. A food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) and a 24 h recall were used to estimate habitual and recent intakes of isoflavones, lignans, flavonols, coumestrol, resveratrol, naringenin, and luteolin. Urinary concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography (HPLC) coupled to mass spectrometry (MS) using the electrospray ionization interface (ESI) and diode array detector (DAD) (HPLC-DAD-ESI-MS). Spearman correlation coefficients were used to evaluate associations between dietary intake and urine concentrations. The habitual consumption (FFQ) of total phytoestrogens was 37.56 mg/day. In urine, the higher compounds were naringenin (60.1 mu g/L) and enterolactone (41.7 mu g/L). Recent intakes (24 h recall) of isoflavones (r = 0.460, p < 0.001), lignans (r = 0.550, p < 0.0001), flavonoids (r = 0.240, p < 0.05), and total phytoestrogens (r = 0.410, p < 0.001) were correlated to their urinary levels. Total phytoestrogen intakes estimated by the FFQ showed higher correlations to urinary levels (r = 0.730, p < 0.0001). Urinary phytoestrogens may be useful as biomarkers of phytoestrogen intake, and as a tool for evaluating the relationship of intake and disease risk in Mexican women.

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