| Literature DB >> 25943758 |
Zheng Xie1, Haijiang Lin2, Renfei Fang3, Weiwei Shen4, Shuguang Li5, Bo Chen6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coke oven workers (COWs) are exposed to high level of genotoxic chemicals that induce oxidative stress and genetic damage. The dietary intake of certain types of foods may reverse these effects.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25943758 PMCID: PMC4428115 DOI: 10.1186/s12940-015-0028-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Health ISSN: 1476-069X Impact factor: 5.984
Demographic characteristics of coke oven workers (COWs) and controls
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| Age (years)a | 38.1 (7.5) | 35.5 (8.3)* | 37.8 (8.2) |
| BMI (kg/m2)b | |||
| ≤25 | 46 (69) | 40 (78) | 58 (73) |
| >25 | 21 (31) | 11 (22) | 21 (27) |
| Level of educationb | |||
| High school and below | 57 (85) | 46 (90) | 73 (92) |
| College and above | 10 (15) | 5 (10) | 6 (8) |
| Cigarette smokingb | |||
| Nonsmoker | 28 (42) | 15 (29) | 28 (35) |
| Smoker | 39 (58) | 36 (71) | 51 (65) |
| Alcohol drinkingb | |||
| Nondrinker | 25 (37) | 18 (35) | 25 (32) |
| Drinker | 42 (63) | 33 (65) | 54 (68) |
| Working hours per daya | 8.4 (1.1) | 7.6 (0.7) | 7.7 (0.8) |
| Years of servicea | 10.2 (3.4) | 6.9 (2.3)*** | 7.6 (1.9)*** |
* P < 0.05, *** P < 0.001 vs. control group.
aArithmetic mean (standard deviation).
bNumber (%).
Exposure levels, oxidative stress, and DNA damage in coke oven workers (COWs) and controls
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| Exposure levels | |||
| 1-OHP(μmol/mol creatinine)a | 0.6 (0.2–1.9) | 6.5 (2.9–10.3)*** | 2.4 (1.1–5.7)*** |
| Oxidative stress | |||
| SOD (U/mL)a | 1068.5 (35.2) | 753.7 (60.9)*** | 821.8 (47.1)*** |
| GPx (U/mL)a | 84.2 (2.3) | 47.8 (5.6)*** | 55.1 (3.9)*** |
| MDA (nmol/mL)a | 3.9 (0.8) | 6.9 (1.4)*** | 6.7 (1.2)*** |
| DNA damage | |||
| MN frequency (‰)a | 2.2 (1.8) | 5.1 (4.7)*** | 4.6 (5.2)*** |
| 8-OH-dG(μmol/mol creatinine)b | 1.3 (0.8–1.8) | 2.3 (1.0–7.1)*** | 2.4 (0.7–6.9)*** |
*** P < 0.001 vs. control group.
aArithmetic mean (standard deviation).
bGeometric mean (95% confidence interval).
Factor loadings for dietary patterns in all subjects
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rice | 0.81 | / | 0.21 | / |
| Noodles | 0.73 | 0.19 | / | 0.21 |
| Steamed buns | /a | / | / | −0.16 |
| Coarse cereals | / | −0.25 | / | −0.15 |
| Dark vegetables | 0.21 | 0.78 | / | / |
| Light vegetables | 0.24 | 0.70 | / | / |
| Mushrooms | / | / | / | / |
| Legume products | / | / | 0.31 | / |
| Fruit | / | 0.76 | −0.21 | 0.15 |
| Eggs | 0.18 | / | / | −0.17 |
| Pork | 0.20 | / | 0.61 | / |
| Poultry | 0.19 | 0.20 | 0.59 | 0.20 |
| Beef and mutton | / | −0.18 | / | / |
| Processed meat | −0.23 | / | 0.43 | −0.23 |
| Visceral organs | −0.18 | / | 0.27 | / |
| Fish | 0.24 | 0.21 | / | 0.18 |
| Shrimps and crabs | / | / | −0.17 | / |
| Dairy products | / | 0.19 | / | / |
| Beverages | −0.29 | / | −0.25 | 0.23 |
| Alcohol | −0.18 | / | 0.22 | −0.27 |
| Fried pasta | / | −0.23 | −0.28 | −0.27 |
| Snacks and cookies | −0.15 | / | −0.26 | 0.84 |
| Sugars and preserves | / | −0.19 | / | 0.61 |
| Oils | 0.31 | / | / | 0.32 |
| Condiments | 0.15 | / | / | / |
aFactor loadings ≤ │0.15│ were excluded for simplicity.
Pattern 1: Rice-noodle pattern; Pattern 2: Fruit-vegetable pattern; Pattern 3: High protein foods; Pattern 4: Snack-sugar pattern.
Food frequency and dietary pattern in association with oxidative stress and DNA damage [shown as the standardized coefficients (β) and significance ( )]
|
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Frequency of fruit consumption (daily vs. weekly+monthly) | ||||||||||
| Crude | 0.117 | 0.035 | 0.034 | 0.241 | −0.151 | 0.027 | −0.119 | 0.129 | −0.197 | 0.040 |
| Adjusteda | 0.104 | 0.048 | 0.031 | 0.246 | −0.143 | 0.027 | −0.138 | 0.105 | −0.178 | 0.051 |
| Frequency of dark vegetable consumption (daily vs. weekly+monthly) | ||||||||||
| Crude | 0.098 | 0.064 | 0.122 | 0.026 | −0.144 | 0.031 | −0.212 | 0.033 | −0.205 | 0.039 |
| Adjusteda | 0.095 | 0.065 | 0.109 | 0.041 | −0.151 | 0.025 | −0.223 | 0.036 | −0.195 | 0.042 |
| Frequency of light vegetable consumption (daily vs. weekly+monthly) | ||||||||||
| Crude | 0.121 | 0.045 | 0.084 | 0.097 | −0.132 | 0.046 | −0.175 | 0.058 | −0.188 | 0.049 |
| Adjusteda | 0.112 | 0.052 | 0.091 | 0.092 | −0.135 | 0.045 | −0.168 | 0.066 | −0.184 | 0.051 |
| Pattern 1: Rice-noodle | ||||||||||
| Crude | −0.037 | 0.721 | −0.082 | 0.427 | 0.054 | 0.596 | 0.115 | 0.260 | 0.038 | 0.713 |
| Adjusteda | 0.037 | 0.396 | −0.006 | 0.885 | 0.005 | 0.951 | 0.090 | 0.357 | −0.025 | 0.686 |
| Pattern 2: Fruit-vegetable | ||||||||||
| Crude | 0.109 | 0.041 | 0.082 | 0.106 | −0.121 | 0.031 | −0.257 | 0.017 | −0.211 | 0.031 |
| Adjusteda | 0.182 | 0.013 | 0.099 | 0.057 | −0.130 | 0.026 | −0.293 | 0.012 | −0.220 | 0.028 |
| Pattern 3: High protein foods | ||||||||||
| Crude | −0.074 | 0.297 | −0.062 | 0.412 | −0.004 | 0.967 | 0.196 | 0.083 | 0.091 | 0.218 |
| Adjusteda | −0.057 | 0.233 | −0.033 | 0.327 | −0.021 | 0.789 | 0.174 | 0.100 | 0.079 | 0.164 |
| Pattern 4: Snack-sugars | ||||||||||
| Crude | −0.013 | 0.900 | 0.009 | 0.932 | −0.100 | 0.330 | 0.033 | 0.696 | 0.034 | 0.739 |
| Adjusteda | −0.031 | 0.465 | −0.036 | 0.339 | −0.072 | 0.395 | 0.040 | 0.583 | 0.072 | 0.258 |
The food frequency comparison was within the dichotomized variables. The dietary pattern comparison was between the highest quartile subjects (Q4) and the lowest quartile subjects (Q1).
aAdjusted for age, BMI, level of education, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, working hours per day, years of service, urinary 1-OHP levels, and exposure group (controls, other COWs, and topside COWs).
Figure 1Oxidative stress and genetic damage in association with occupational exposure and FV consumption. SOD (A), GPx (B), and MDA (C) levels were measured to assess oxidative stress; MN frequency (D) and 8-OH-dG (E) levels were measured to assess genetic damage. SOD, GPx, MDA, and MN frequency are expressed as arithmetic mean ± standard deviation, 8-OH-dG levels are expressed as geometric mean. The above parameters were compared among four groups: control subjects with an FV pattern in the lowest quartile (controls+Q1), control subjects with an FV pattern in the highest quartile (controls+Q4), exposed subjects with an FV pattern in Q1 (COWs+Q1), and exposed subjects with an FV pattern in Q4 (COWs+Q4).