| Literature DB >> 20822968 |
Judith C Stewart1, David C Chalupa, Robert B Devlin, Lauren M Frasier, Li-Shan Huang, Erika L Little, Steven M Lee, Richard P Phipps, Anthony P Pietropaoli, Mark B Taubman, Mark J Utell, Mark W Frampton.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes confers an increased risk for cardiovascular effects of airborne particles.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20822968 PMCID: PMC3002188 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1002237
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Health Perspect ISSN: 0091-6765 Impact factor: 9.031
Subject characteristics measured at screening.a
| Age groups | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Men | Women | 30–45 years | 46–60 years |
| No. of subjects ( | 9 | 10 | 10 | 9 |
| Age (years) | 48.3 ± 8.8 | 43.7 ± 10.0 | 38.0 ± 1.4 | 54.7 ± 1.3 |
| Race/ethnicity ( | ||||
| African American | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Asian | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Hispanic | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| White | 8 | 6 | 8 | 6 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 34.7 ± 5.2 | 31.1 ± 5.5 | 32.8 ± 2.1 | 32.8 ± 1.5 |
| Cholesterol (mg/dL) | 191.0 ± 36.7 | 168.5 ± 31.9 | 181.7 ± 11.9 | 176.3 ± 11.4 |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 185.9 ± 55.1 | 102.9 ± 80.5 | 142.6 ± 31.0 | 141.8 ± 20.1 |
| High-density lipoprotein (mg/dL) | 40.6 ± 7.0 | 47.5 ± 8.1 | 44.7 ± 2.5 | 43.7 ± 2.9 |
| Low-density lipoprotein (mg/dL) | 113.2 ± 38.0 | 100.5 ± 27.8 | 108.4 ± 12.1 | 104.4 ± 9.3 |
| Cholesterol–high-density lipoprotein ratio | 4.8 ± 0.8 | 3.7 ± 0.9 | 4.2 ± 0.3 | 4.2 ± 0.4 |
| HgbA1c (mmol/mol) | 7.6 ± 1.1 | 7.7 ± 1.8 | 7.6 ± 0.6 | 7.7 ± 0.4 |
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 151.4 ± 34.8 | 168.4 ± 94.0 | 174.7 ± 28.9 | 144.4 ± 12.3 |
| Microalbuminuria (mg/dL) | 20.2 ± 58.4 (0.8 ± 0.5) | 2.9 ± 5.9 | 18.6 ± 17.5 | 2.8 ± 2.1 |
Data are given as mean ± SD.
Without one male outlier at 176.0 mg/dL.
Without one female outlier at 19.3 mg/dL.
p < 0.05 between sexes.
Figure 1Markers expressed on the platelet surface with activation indicate differences in response to UFP relative to air. (A) Platelet expression of CD40L (n = 16) shows a significant UFP–time interaction, with the greatest effect 3.5 hr after exposure (*t-test comparing UFP and air at 3.5 hr, correcting for baseline, p = 0.004). (B) Expression of CD62P (n = 19) shows a similar but nonsignificant increase at 3.5 hr. (C) The number of leukocytes expressing CD62P (n = 18), which is indicative of conjugation with activated platelets and/or platelet MP, shows a significant difference in response after UFP versus air exposure. Preexposure values are shown in the insets. Expression is measured in molecules of equivalent phycoerythrin (MEPE).
Figure 2Changes in plasma soluble markers indicate different responses to UFP exposures than to air. (A) von Willebrand factor (n = 19) shows an overall significant UFP effect, with the greatest effect 0.5 hr after exposure (*t-test comparing UFP and air at 0.5 hr correcting for baselune, p = 0.003). (B) IL-6 (n = 19) increased nonsignificantly after UFP exposure. (C) Soluble CD40L (n = 19) shows a significant overall decrease after UFP versus air exposure and significant decreases at 3.5 and 21 hr after UFP exposure corrected for baseline (*t-test p = 0.029 and 0.022, respectively). (D) CRP (n = 19) decreased nonsignificantly after UFP exposure. Preexposure values are shown in the insets.
Figure 3Sex-related responses. (A–B) Changes in the number of leukocytes expressing CD62P in men (A, n = 8) and women (B, n = 10). Model 2 analysis shows a significant overall UFP effect (p = 0.034) and a significant UFP–sex interaction. (C–D) Changes in the number of platelets expressing CD62P in men (C, n = 9) and women (D, n = 10). Model 2 analysis shows a significant UFP–sex interaction. (E–F) Changes in the number of MP expressing CD40L in men (E, n = 6) and women (F, n = 9). Model 2 analysis shows a significant UFP–sex interaction, with increases in men and decreases in women after UFP exposure. Preexposure values are shown in the insets.
Figure 4Age-related responses. Change in the number of MP expressing CD62P for all subjects (A); subjects 30–45 years old (B); subjects 46–60 years old (C); male subjects (D); and female subjects (E). Model 2 analysis showed a significant overall UFP treatment effect and a significant UFP–age interaction. There was a marginally significant UFP–sex interaction. Preexposure values are shown in the insets.