| Literature DB >> 24505316 |
Qi Wang1, Jia Hu2, Tian-xu Han3, Mei Li2, Huan-hu Zhao4, Jian-wei Chen2, Lin-Xiang Ye1, Yi-Kai Zhou2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cadmium (Cd) is a heavy metal that can cause renal tubular dysfunction in humans. Women are among the high-risk group for Cd health effects. Determining the thresholds of Cd-induced renal effects is important. Thus, in this article, we aimed to identify the benchmark dose (BMD) and its low limit (BMDL) levels as the Cd thresholds for Chinese women.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24505316 PMCID: PMC3913698 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087817
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Age distribution of subjects enrolled from CA and CB.
| No. (%) of subjects | Statistics | ||||
| County | Cd-exposure level | 35 yrs to 44 yrs | 45 yrs to 55 yrs | Total | |
| A | Low | 62 (29.7) | 47 (22.5) | 109 (52.2) |
|
| High | 49 (23.4) | 51 (24.4) | 100 (47.8) | ||
| Total | 111 (53.1) | 98 (46.9) | 209 (100.0) | ||
| B | Low | 64 (23.8) | 63 (23.4) | 127 (47.2) |
|
| High | 75 (27.9) | 67 (24.9) | 142 (52.8) | ||
| Total | 139 (51.7) | 130 (48.3) | 269 (100.0) | ||
Indicated the Cd exposure level of subjects enrolled in the selected village about 30 km far from the smelter opposite the leeward in CA.
Indicated the Cd exposure level of subjects enrolled in the two selected villages about 2 km to 4 km far from the smelter on the leeward in CA.
Indicated the Cd exposure level of subjects enrolled in the two selected villages about 10 km far from the copper smelter opposite the leeward in CB.
Indicated the Cd exposure level of subjects enrolled in the three selected villages about 2 km to 3 km far from the copper smelter on the leeward in CB.
GMs (GSDs) of levels of the three studied urinary substances of the CA and CB subjects.
| Cd-exposure level in CA | Cd-exposure level in CB | ||||||
| Variables | Age (yrs.) | Low | High | Total | Low | High | Total |
| UCd (µg/g cr) | 35 to 44 | 1.2 (2.34) | 7.4(2.47) | 2.7(3.51) | 2.2 (2.52) | 6.9(2.50) | 4.1(2.94) |
| 45 to 55 | 1.7(2.58) | 6.4 (2.44) | 3.4(3.09) | 3.2(2.22) | 9.2(2.58) | 5.5(2.78) | |
| Total | 1.4 (2.48) | 6.9 (2.45) | 3.0(3.32) | 2.7 (2.41) | 7.9(2.56) | 4.7(2.88) | |
| UB2M (µg/g cr) | 35 to 44 | 637.3 (2.39) | 1184.5(2.44) | 837.9(2.54) | 345.9(3.20) | 437.3(2.61) | 392.5(3.70) |
| 45 to 55 | 789.6(2.35) | 1300.9(2.15) | 1023.8(2.32) | 559.2(2.28) | 598.7(3.38) | 579.2(2.84) | |
| Total | 699.0 (2.38) | 1242.5(2.29) | 920.5(2.45) | 439.0(3.70) | 507.2(2.99) | 473.8(3.32) | |
| UNAG (U/g cr) | 35 to 44 | 16.7(3.82) | 17.2 (3.97) | 16.9(3.87) | 2.7 (2.05) | 4.8(2.02) | 3.6(2.13) |
| 45 to 55 | 26.4 (4.56) | 19.8 (3.78) | 22.7(4.15) | 3.7(2.11) | 4.5(2.10) | 4.1(2.11) | |
| Total | 20.3(4.18) | 18.5(3.86) | 19.4(4.02) | 3.1(2.11) | 4.5(2.05) | 3.8 (2.12) | |
Indicated the Cd exposure level of subjects enrolled in the selected village about 30 km far from the smelter opposite the leeward in CA.
Indicated the Cd exposure level of subjects enrolled in the two selected villages about 2 km to 4 km far from the smelter on the leeward in CA.
Indicated the Cd exposure level of subjects enrolled in the two selected villages about 10 km far from the copper smelter opposite the leeward in CB.
Indicated the Cd exposure level of subjects enrolled in the three selected villages about 2 km to 3 km far from the copper smelter on the leeward in CB.
Compared with the counterpart value of subjects with high-level Cd exposures, P<0.01 (by using students’ t test).
Compared with the counterpart value of subjects aged 45 years to 55 years, P<0.05 (by using students’ t test).
Prevalence of hyperB2Muria and hyperNAGuria corresponding to UCd intervals among subjects in CA and CBa.
| CA | CB | ||||||||
| HyperB2Muria | HyperNAGuria | HyperB2Muria | HyperNAGuria | ||||||
| UCd intervals (µg/g cr) | +/− | % | +/− | % | +/− | % | +/− | % | |
| <2.00 | 3/82 | 3.53 | 3/82 | 3.53 | 2/48 | 4.00 | 3/47 | 6.00 | |
| 2.01–4.00 | 4/41 | 8.89 | 4/41 | 8.89 | 5/64 | 7.25 | 4/65 | 5.80 | |
| 4.01–10.00 | 13/29 | 30.95 | 8/34 | 19.05 | 13/75 | 14.77 | 19/69 | 21.59 | |
| >10.00 | 13/24 | 35.14 | 6/31 | 16.22 | 16/46 | 25.81 | 22/40 | 35.48 | |
| Total | 33/176 | 15.79 | 21/188 | 10.05 | 36/233 | 13.38 | 48/221 | 17.84 | |
| Linear trend test |
|
|
|
| |||||
Corresponding 90th percentiles of UB2M (i.e. 1948.8 µg/g cr and 1608.7 µg/g cr) and UNAG (i.e. 90.2 U/g cr and 6.8 U/g cr) among the low-Cd exposed subjects were adopted as the thresholds for hyperB2Muria and hyperNAGuria in CA and CB, respectively. And BMD approach was used for the county-by-county data to generate BMD/BMDL values.
Prevalence of hyperB2Muria and hyperNAGuria corresponding to UCd intervals grouped by the 16.67th (1.26), 33.33th (2.36), 50.00th (3.78), 66.67th (6.39), and 83.33th (11.99) percentiles among all subjects a.
| UCd (µg/g cr) | HyperB2Muria | HyperNAGuria | |||
| Rang | GM | +/− | % | +/− | % |
| <1.26 | 0.70 | 3/76 | 3.80 | 3/76 | 3.80 |
| 1.27–2.36 | 1.75 | 6/74 | 7.50 | 6/74 | 7.50 |
| 2.37–3.78 | 3.03 | 5/75 | 6.25 | 3/77 | 3.75 |
| 3.79–6.39 | 4.91 | 13/67 | 16.25 | 10/70 | 12.50 |
| 6.40–11.99 | 8.53 | 17/63 | 21.25 | 13/67 | 16.25 |
| >11.99 | 21.73 | 22/57 | 27.85 | 19/60 | 24.05 |
| Total | 3.88 | 66/412 | 13.81 | 54/424 | 11.30 |
| Linear trend test |
|
| |||
Corresponding 95th percentiles of UB2M (i.e. 1198.8 µg/g cr and 849.4 µg/g cr) and UNAG (i.e. 32.1 U/g cr and 6.4 U/g cr) among the subjects with UCd of ≤2.0 µg/g cr were adopted as the thresholds for hyperB2Muria and hyperNAGuria in CA and CB, respectively. And BMD approach was used for the combined dataset to generate BMD/BMDL values.
Separate BMD estimates of UCd (µg/g cr) based on UB2M (µg/g cr) and UNAG (U/g cr) for subjects in CA and CBa.
| Variable | Model | AIC | Intercept | Slope | BMD05 | BMDL05 | BMD10 | BMDL10 |
|
| UB2M |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LogLogistic | 160.41 | −3.01 | 0.91 | 1.08 | 0.42 | 2.45 | 1.34 | 0.1561 | |
| UB2M | LogProbit | 203.34 | −1.85 | 0.41 | 1.66 | 0.43 | 4.05 | 1.94 | 0.6858 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Quantal-Linear | 201.96 | 0.02 | 3.34 | 2.18 | 6.87 | 4.48 | 0.6681 | ||
| UNAG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LogLogistic | 132.91 | −2.96 | 0.56 | 1.04 | 0.09 | 3.92 | 1.53 | 0.3042 | |
| Quantal-Linear | 134.73 | 0.01 | 4.51 | 2.39 | 9.26 | 4.90 | 0.1113 | ||
| UNAG | LogProbit | 234.23 | −2.08 | 0.58 | 2.13 | 0.54 | 3.99 | 1.58 | 0.1226 |
| LogLogistic | 234.38 | −3.26 | 0.92 | 1.41 | 0.42 | 3.19 | 1.49 | 0.1137 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corresponding 90th percentiles of UB2M (i.e. 1948.8 µg/g cr and 1608.7 µg/g cr) and UNAG (i.e. 90.2 U/g cr and 6.8 U/g cr) among the low-Cd exposed subjects were adopted as the thresholds for hyperB2Muria and hyperNAGuria in CA and CB, respectively. And BMD approach was used for the county-by-county data to generate BMD/BMDL values.
In CA.
In CB.
P values were obtained from the chi-square test with the Pearson goodness of fit test; if P>0.1 then the model is a good fit.
LogProbit model: P[response = background+(1-background) ×CumNorm×[intercept +slope×Log(dose)].
Loglogistic model: P[response] = background+(1-background)/[1+EXP(-intercept–slope×Log (dose)) ].
Quantal-linear model: P[response] = background+(1-background)×[1-EXP(-slope×dose)].
BMD estimates of UCd (µg/g cr) based on UB2M (µg/g cr) and UNAG (U/g cr) by conducting BMD approach with dichotomous data of all subjectsa.
| Variable | Model | AIC | Intercept | Slope | BMD05 | BMDL05 | BMD10 | BMDL10 |
|
| UB2M |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LogLogistic | 359.804 | −2.92 | 0.64 | 1.00 | 0.36 | 3.09 | 1.80 | 0.5677 | |
| UNAG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| LogLogistic | 321.541 | −3.12 | 0.61 | 1.32 | 0.46 | 4.46 | 2.62 | 0.4022 |
Corresponding 95th percentiles of UB2M (i.e. 1198.8 µg/g cr and 849.4 µg/g cr) and UNAG (i.e. 32.1 U/g cr and 6.4 U/g cr) among the subjects with UCd of ≤2.0 µg/g cr were adopted as the thresholds for hyperB2Muria and hyperNAGuria in CA and CB, respectively. And BMD approach was used for the combined dataset to generate BMD/BMDL values.
P values were obtained from the chi-square test with the Pearson goodness of fit test; if P>0.1 then the model is a good fit.
LogProbit model: P[response = background+(1-background) ×CumNorm×[intercept +slope×Log(dose)].
LogLogistic model: P[response] = background+(1-background)/[1+EXP(-intercept–slope×Log (dose)) ].