4.7 Article

Neural tube defects and disturbed maternal folate- and homocysteine-mediated one-carbon metabolism

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL NEUROLOGY
卷 212, 期 2, 页码 515-521

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2008.04.044

关键词

neural tube defects; potential fisk factors; folate; homocysteine; one-carbon metabolism; pathogenesis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Disturbances in maternal folate and homocysteine metabolism are associated with neural tube defects (NTDs). However, the role played by specific components in the one-carbon metabolic pathways leading to NTDs remains unclear. Here, we conducted a case-control study to investigate the relationship between the disturbed one-carbon metabolism and the risk of NTD-affected pregnancies. Major components were examined in population-based samples of women who had NTD-affected pregnancies (case subjects, n=46) or unaffected by any birth defects (control subjects, n=44). We used the newly developed high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry along with a routine chemiluminescent assay, to measure serum concentrations of 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5-MeTHF), 5-formyltetrahydrofolate (5-FoTHF), folic acid, serine, histidine, homocysteine, cystathionine, methionine, S-adenosylmethionine (SAM), S-adenosylhomocysteine (SAH), total folate and vitamin B12 in both groups adjusting for lifestyle and sociodemographic variables. We found significantly lower serum concentrations of 5-MeTHF (P<0.001), 5-FoTHF (P=0.004), total folate (P<0.001) and vitamin B12 (P=0.005) and remarkably higher concentrations of SAH (P=0.016) in cases than in controls. Therefore, these compounds could be identified as potential risk factors for NTD's early diagnosis. Further analysis of relevant genetic and epidemiologic investigations may provide more insights into the pathogenesis of NTDs and enhance current nutritional intervention strategies to reduce the risk of NTD-affected pregnancies. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. 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