| Literature DB >> 31200560 |
Sylwia Wenclewska1, Izabela Szymczak-Pajor2, Józef Drzewoski3, Mariusz Bunk4, Agnieszka Śliwińska5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research evidence indicates that vitamin D deficiency is involved in the pathogenesis of insulin resistance (IR) and associated metabolic disorders including hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia. It also suggested that vitamin D deficiency is associated with elevated levels of oxidative stress and its complications. Therefore, the aim of our study was to determine the effect of vitamin D supplementation on DNA damage and metabolic parameters in vitamin D deficient individuals aged >45 with metabolic disorders. Material andEntities:
Keywords: endogenous and oxidative DNA damage; insulin resistance; lipid profile; type 2 diabetes; vitamin D
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31200560 PMCID: PMC6628266 DOI: 10.3390/ijms20122891
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1The serum level of vitamin D detected in the intervention group (+Vit. D, n = 48) and the comparative group (−Vit. D, n = 44) before and after three-month supplementation. Results are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) (*** p < 0.001).
Figure 2The serum level of vitamin D detected in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) (T2DM + Vit. D, n = 18; T2DM – Vit. D, n = 14) and patients without T2DM (Control + Vit. D, n = 30; Control − Vit. D, n = 30) before and after three-month supplementation. Results are presented as mean ± SD (* p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001).
Figure 3The impact of three-month supplementation of vitamin D on the level of endogenous and oxidative DNA damage in the intervention group (+Vit. D, n = 48) in relation to the comparative group (−Vit. D, n = 44). The level of DNA damage was measured by the alkaline comet assay. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Figure 4The impact of three-month supplementation with vitamin D on the level of endogenous and oxidative DNA damage. DNA damage were determined in (A) T2DM patients treated with vitamin D (T2DM + Vit. D, n = 14), (B) T2DM patients not treated with vitamin D (T2DM − Vit. D, n = 18), (C) patients without T2DM treated with vitamin D (Control + Vit.D, n = 30), (D) patients without T2DM not treated with vitamin D (Control − Vit. D, n = 30). The level of DNA damage was measured by the alkaline comet assay. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Metabolic parameters of participants from the intervention group (n = 48) and the comparative group (n = 44) at baseline and after three-month vitamin D supplementation. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM.
| Metabolic Parameters | Time (Months) | Intervention Group (+Vit. D) ( | Comparative Group (−Vit. D) ( |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | 113.63 ± 4.26 | 124.48 ± 4.70 |
| 3 | 104.19 ± 3.06 | 105.15 ** ± 3.50 | |
|
| 0 | 189.54 ± 7.94 | 162.12 ± 7.34 a |
| 3 | 208.08 ± 8.23 | 173.93 ± 9.65 aa | |
|
| 0 | 46.60 ± 2.44 | 45.03 ± 3.14 |
| 3 | 58.90 ± 1.88 *** | 52.10 ± 2.22 | |
|
| 0 | 109.22 ± 7.28 | 92.65 ± 6.43 |
| 3 | 123.08 ± 7.58 | 96.35 ± 7.63 a | |
|
| 0 | 149.12 ± 12.64 | 117.15 ± 8.56 a |
| 3 | 138.80 ± 7.64 | 130.77 ± 9.01 | |
|
| 0 | 6.64 ± 0.20 | 6.22 ± 0.13 |
| 3 | 6.35 ± 0.21 | 6.42 ± 0.18 | |
|
| 0 | 5.55 ± 0.59 | 7.85 ± 0.89 a |
| 3 | 3.23 ± 0.38 ** | 4.49 ± 0.55 ** | |
|
| 0 | 3.91 ± 0.44 | 3.69 ± 0.64 |
| 3 | 2.51 ± 0.21 ** | 2.94 ± 0.43 | |
|
| 0 | 28.12 ± 0.57 | 28.69 ± 0.39 |
| 3 | 27.79 ± 0.53 | 28.13 ± 0.37 |
** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 Time (0 month) vs. Time (three months). a p < 0.05; aa p < 0.01 + Vit. D vs. − Vit. D. Grey colour indicates statistically significant differences between metabolic parameters.
Metabolic parameters of patients with T2DM (T2DM + Vit. D, n = 18; T2DM – Vit. D, n = 14) and patients without T2DM (Control + Vit. D, n = 30; Control − Vit. D, n = 30) at baseline (0) and after three months of vitamin D supplementation (3). The FPG, TC, LDL, HDL, TG and HbA1C were evaluated. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
| Metabolic Parameters | Time (Months) | T2DM + Vit.D ( | T2DM − Vit. D ( | Control + Vit. D ( | Control − Vit. D ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | 135.39 ± 5.43 | 141.35 ± 9.30 | 101.53 ± 4.75 bbb,dd | 116.60 ± 4.70 ccc,eee |
| 3 | 118.15 ± 2.74 ** | 125.11 ± 7.01 | 95.81 ± 3.88 bbb,ddd | 95.83 ± 2.56 ***,ccc,eee | |
|
| 0 | 141.63 ± 6.59 | 141.64 ± 10.64 | 215.10 ± 9.12 bbb,ddd | 172.35 ± 9.03 c,e,ff |
| 3 | 171.45 ± 6.94 ** | 154.90 ± 13.39 | 223.00 ± 8.27 bbb,ddd | 183.95 ± 7.04 e,fff | |
|
| 0 | 34.25 ± 2.48 | 37.64 ± 4.25 | 53.90 ± 2.88 bbb,dd | 48.48 ± 4.00 c |
| 3 | 53.91 ± 2.65 *** | 47.01 ± 4.09 | 62.83 ± 2.26 *,b,ddd | 57.08 ± 2.43 e,f | |
|
| 0 | 78.69 ± 6.30 | 75.40 ± 6.88 | 125.50 ± 9.79 bb,dd | 103.97 ± 7.80 c,e |
| 3 | 88.36 ± 5.63 | 75.54 ± 10.27 | 137.22 ± 7.74 bbb,ddd | 107.30 ± 5.37 c,ee,ff | |
|
| 0 | 143.44 ± 10.97 | 149.00 ± 18.17 | 152.37 ± 19.10 | 102.29 ± 7.91 cc,ee,f |
| 3 | 148.18 ± 12.54 | 162.40 ± 22.90 | 131.89 ± 9.22 | 116.01 ± 6.14 cc,ee | |
|
| 0 | 7.90 ± 0.36 | 7.09 ± 0.26 | 5.92 ± 0.07 bbb,ddd | 5.781 ± 0.07 ccc,eee |
| 3 | 7.44 ± 0.36 | 7.25 ± 0.27 | 5.91 ± 0.07 bb,ddd | 5.99 ± 0.08 ccc,eee | |
|
| 0 | 11.68 ± 2.21 | 8.51 ± 1.11 | 4.43 ± 0.70 bb,dd | 7.53 ± 1.20 f |
| 3 | 7.49 ± 0.87 * | 5.99 ± 0.95 | 2.45 ± 0.36 *,bb,ddd | 3.79 ± 0.64 ** | |
|
| 0 | 4.81 ± 0.60 | 5.99 ± 1.76 | 3.38 ± 0.58 | 2.61 ± 0.30 ccc,e |
| 3 | 3.13 ± 0.37 * | 4.47 ± 1.17 | 2.25 ± 0.21 b,d,* | 2.23 ± 0.21 c,e | |
|
| 0 | 29.95 ± 0.88 | 28.30 ± 0.83 | 27.02 ± 0.66 bb | 28.88 ± 0.41 f |
| 3 | 29.41 ± 0.78 | 28.27 ±0.81 | 26.82 ± 0.65 b | 28.06 ± 0.39 |
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 Time (0 month) vs. Time (three months). b p < 0.05; bb p < 0.01; bbb p < 0.001 T2DM + Vit. D vs. Control + Vit. D. c p < 0.05; cc p < 0.01; ccc p < 0.001 T2DM + Vit. D vs. Control – Vit. D. d p < 0.05; dd p < 0.01; ddd p < 0.001 T2DM – Vit. D vs. Control + Vit. D. e p < 0.05; ee p < 0.01; eee p < 0.001 T2DM – Vit. D vs. Control – Vit. D. f p < 0.05; ff p < 0.01; fff p < 0.001 Control + Vit. D vs. Control – Vit. D. Grey colour indicates metabolic parameters that are statistically significant between baseline and after 3 months.
The correlation between vitamin D and endogenous and oxidative DNA damage in the intervention group (+Vit. D) and comparative group (−Vit. D) at baseline (0) and after three months of vitamin D supplementation (3). The analysis was performed by Pearson’s correlation test.
| DNA Damage | Time (Months) | Intervention Group (+Vit. D, | Comparative Group (−Vit. D, | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson Correlation |
| Pearson Correlation |
| ||
|
| 0 | 0.081 | 0.582 | −0.015 | 0.939 |
| 3 | −0.083 | 0.575 | −0.110 | 0.563 | |
|
| 0 | −0.069 | 0.640 | 0.275 | 0.705 |
| 3 | −0.215 | 0.140 | −0.195 | 0.204 | |
|
| 0 | 0.187 | 0.202 | −0.226 | 0.141 |
| 3 | −0.278 | 0.06 | −0.094 | 0.545 | |
The correlation between Vitamin D and endogenous and oxidative DNA damage in patients with T2DM (T2DM + Vit. D, n = 18; T2DM – Vit. D, n = 14) and patients without T2DM (Control + Vit. D, n = 30; Control – Vit. D, n = 30) at baseline (0) and after three months of vitamin D supplementation (3). The analysis was performed by Pearson’s correlation test.
| DNA Damage | Time (Months) | T2DM + Vit. D | T2DM − Vit. D | Control + Vit. D | Control − Vit. D | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson Correlation |
| Pearson Correlation |
| Pearson Correlation |
| Pearson Correlation |
| ||
|
| 0 | 0.267 | 0.344 | −0.487 | 0.077 | 0.299 | 0.471 | −0.015 | 0.939 |
| 3 | 0.458 | 0.056 | −0.383 | 0.176 | −0.028 | 0.883 | −0.110 | 0.563 | |
|
| 0 | −0.101 | 0.690 | 0.094 | 0.749 | −0.102 | 0.592 | 0.161 | 0.395 |
| 3 | −0.244 | 0.328 | −0.391 | 0.166 | −0.237 | 0.206 | −0.134 | 0.479 | |
|
| 0 | 0.129 | 0.610 | −0.267 | 0.356 | 0.275 | 0.141 | −0.995 | 0.601 |
| 3 | 0.060 | 0.814 | −0.231 | 0.427 | −0.245 | 0.191 | −0.122 | 0.518 | |
The correlation between HbA1c and endogenous and oxidative DNA damage in patients with T2DM (T2DM + Vit. D and T2DM − Vit. D) at baseline and after three months of vitamin D supplementation. The study was perfomed by Pearson’s correlation test, * denotes statistically significant correlation
| DNA Damage | Time (Months) | T2DM + Vit. D | T2DM – Vit. D | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson Correlation |
| Pearson Correlation |
| ||
|
| 0 | 0.302 | 0.220 | 0.015 | 0.960 |
| 3 | −0.406 | 0.617 | 0.165 | 0.571 | |
|
| 0 | 0.126 | 0.620 | 0.229 | 0.430 |
| 3 | 0.107 | 0.670 | 0.174 | 0.550 | |
|
| 0 | 0.498 | 0.031* | −0.022 | 0.941 |
| 3 | 0.194 | 0.440 | −0.33 | 0.260 | |
* indicates statistically significant correlation.
The correlations between Vitamin D and metabolic parameters in the intervention group and comparative group at baseline and after three months of the study. The Pearson’s correlation test was employed, * denotes statistically significant correlation.
| Metabolic Parameters | Time (Months) | Intervention Group (+Vit. D, | Comparative Group (−Vit. D, | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson Correlation |
| Pearson Correlation |
| ||
|
| 0 | −0.131 | 0.362 | −0.051 | 0.750 |
| 3 | 0.120 | 0.419 | 0.097 | 0.548 | |
|
| 0 | 0.264 | 0.069 | 0.197 | 0.199 |
| 3 | 0.033 | 0.821 | 0.077 | 0.617 | |
|
| 0 | 0.299 | 0.038 * | 0.191 | 0.220 |
| 3 | −0.030 | 0.837 | 0.134 | 0.384 | |
|
| 0 | 0.241 | 0.098 | 0.169 | 0.273 |
| 3 | 0.053 | 0.717 | −0.014 | 0.930 | |
|
| 0 | −0.088 | 0.551 | −0.076 | 0.623 |
| 3 | −0.052 | 0.723 | 0.120 | 0.436 | |
|
| 0 | −0.176 | 0.229 | 0.077 | 0.620 |
| 3 | −0.290 | 0.045 * | 0.234 | 0.126 | |
|
| 0 | −0.220 | 0.132 | −0.031 | 0.840 |
| 3 | 0.187 | 0.231 | 0.060 | 0.700 | |
|
| 0 | −0.240 | 0.104 | −0.270 | 0.071 |
| 3 | −0.120 | 0.401 | −0.130 | 0.380 | |
|
| 0 | −0.087 | 0.555 | −0.064 | 0.682 |
| 3 | −0.038 | 0.798 | 0.030 | 0.847 | |
* denotes statistically significant correlation.
The correlation between vitamin D and FPG, HbA1C, TC, LDL, HDL, TG in patients with T2DM (T2DM + Vit. D, n = 18; T2DM – Vit D, n = 14) and patients without T2DM (Control + Vit. D, n = 30; Control – Vit. D, n = 30) at baseline and after three months of the study. The analysis was conducted by Pearsons Correlation test, * denotes statistically significant correlation.
| Metabolic Parameters | Time (Months) | T2DM + Vit. D | T2DM − Vit. D | Control + Vit. D | Control − Vit. D | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson Correlation |
| Pearson Correlation |
| Pearson Correlation |
| Pearson Correlation |
| ||
|
| 0 | −0.073 | 0.776 | 0.311 | 0.274 | −0.011 | 0.938 | −0.380 | 0.038 * |
| 3 | −0.031 | 0.917 | −0.087 | 0.765 | 0.199 | 0.290 | −0.122 | 0.518 | |
|
| 0 | 0.143 | 0.570 | 0.263 | 0.364 | 0.190 | 0.313 | 0.217 | 0.250 |
| 3 | 0.030 | 0.903 | 0.162 | 0.580 | 0.052 | 0.785 | 0.155 | 0.411 | |
|
| 0 | 0.341 | 0.165 | 0.325 | 0.256 | 0.211 | 0.263 | 0.237 | 0.206 |
| 3 | 0.194 | 0.440 | 0.211 | 0.467 | −0.162 | 0.394 | 0.231 | 0.219 | |
|
| 0 | 0.184 | 0.464 | 0.247 | 0.394 | 0.175 | 0.354 | 0.137 | 0.468 |
| 3 | −0.005 | 0.982 | 0.122 | 0.677 | 0.099 | 0.602 | 0.084 | 0.656 | |
|
| 0 | −0.484 | 0.042 * | −0.180 | 0.538 | −0.045 | 0.810 | −0.051 | 0.788 |
| 3 | −0.143 | 0.571 | −0.002 | 0.993 | 0.007 | 0.969 | −0.009 | 0.960 | |
|
| 0 | −0.169 | 0.501 | 0.158 | 0.589 | - | - | - | - |
| 3 | −0.709 | 0.0009 * | 0.317 | 0.269 | - | - | - | - | |
|
| 0 | −0.421 | 0.080 | 0.311 | 0.281 | −0.091 | 0.631 | −0.160 | 0.388 |
| 3 | −0.052 | 0.899 | 0.161 | 0.590 | 0.428 | 0.024 * | −0.149 | 0.438 | |
|
| 0 | −0.470 | 0.047 * | −0.390 | 0.162 | −0.144 | 0.483 | −0.332 | 0.081 |
| 3 | −0.340 | 0.171 | −0.354 | 0.228 | 0.061 | 0.775 | 0.084 | 0.662 | |
|
| 0 | −0.015 | 0.954 | −0.323 | 0.261 | −0.270 | 0.150 | −0.156 | 0.410 |
| 3 | −0.411 | 0.090 | −0.293 | 0.309 | −0.427 | 0.019 * | 0.012 | 0.949 | |
* indicates statistically significant correlation.
Figure 5Patient flow diagram.