| Literature DB >> 27983558 |
Rosanna Squitti1, Armando J Mendez2,3, Ilaria Simonelli4, Camillo Ricordi2,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Defective copper regulation, primarily referred to as chelatable redox active Cu(II), has been involved in the etiology of diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease (AD).Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; Type 1; Type 2; copper; diabetes; free copper
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 27983558 PMCID: PMC5302029 DOI: 10.3233/JAD-161033
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Alzheimers Dis ISSN: 1387-2877 Impact factor: 4.472
Characteristics of study subjects
| Control | T1D | T2D | |
| n | 28 | 25 | 31 |
| Sex (M/F) | 14/14 | 12/13 | 10/21 |
| Ethnicity (NHW/ | 8/19/1 | 11/10/4 | 5/23/3 |
| HIS/BLA) | |||
| Age (y) | 42.0 ± 11.0 | 45.7 ± 13.0 | |
| Statin Use | 11% | 36% | 100% |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.7 ± 4.0 | 26.8 ± 4.4 | |
| HbA1c (%) | – | 8.2 ± 1.5 | 7.5 ± 1.3 |
| CRP (mg/L) | 1.8 ± 1.6 | 3.0 ± 2.6 | 3.0 ± 2.4 |
| Cholesterol | 206.8 ± 37.5 | 166.1 ± 25.6*** | 183.9 ± 36.6*** |
| (mg/dL) | |||
| Triglyceride | 131.5 ± 88.8 | 64.8 ± 24.6** | 156.1 ± 78.0 |
| (mg/dL) |
Data are expressed as the mean ± SD. CRP and Triglycerides log transformed for statistical analysis. *T2D significantly different from Control and T1D, p < 0.002 by ANOVA. **T1D significantly different from Controls (p < 0.001) and T2D (p < 0.05) by ANOVA. ***T1D and T2D significantly different from Controls (p < 0.05) by ANOVA. In bold are reported the significant results.
Fig.1Non-Cp Cu levels in Control, T1D, and T2D subjects. Scatter plots show the mean and SD of each group. p values determined by ANOVA.
Fig.2(Lack of) Correlation between non-Cp Cu and age. The Pearson correlation (r) were –0.280, 0.191, and –0.026 for Control, T1D and T2D subjects, respectively (all p > 0.1).
Fig.3(Lack of) Correlation between non-Cp Cu and BMI. The Pearson correlation (r) were –0.112, 0.150, and –0.022 for Control, T1D, and T2D subjects, respectively (all p > 0.1).
Multinomial logistic regression results
| RRR | 95% CI | ||
| T1D | |||
| Sex, F versus M | 0.76 | 0.24–2.47 | 0.653 |
| Standardized non-Cp Cu, | 1.67 | 0.89–3.14 | 0.109 |
| standard deviation unit | |||
| BMI, kg/m2 | 1.04 | 0.89–1.21 | 0.593 |
| Age, years | 1.03 | 0.87–1.08 | 0.317 |
| T2D | |||
| Sex, F versus M | 0.66 | 0.13–3.41 | 0.618 |
| Standardized non-Cp Cu, | 9.64 | 2.86–32.47 | < |
| standard deviation unit | |||
| BMI, kg/m2 | 1.18 | 0.98–1.41 | 0.076 |
| Age, years | 1.17 | 1.06–1.29 | |
In bold are reported the significant results.
Fig.4Comparison of non-Cp-Cu levels in Control, and T2D subjects to AD subjects. Scatter plots show the mean and SD of each group. p values determined by ANOVA.
Fig.5Comparison of non-Cp Cu levels as revealed through the direct method and the indirect non-Cp Cu Walshe’s index in samples from 147 healthy subjects and 89 AD patients.