| Literature DB >> 31635341 |
Soisungwan Satarug1, David A Vesey2,3, Werawan Ruangyuttikarn4, Muneko Nishijo5, Glenda C Gobe6,7,8,9, Kenneth R Phelps10.
Abstract
In theory, the identification of the source of excreted cadmium (Cd) might elucidate the pathogenesis of Cd-induced chronic kidney disease (CKD). With that possibility in mind, we studied Thai subjects with low, moderate, and high Cd exposure. We measured urine concentrations of Cd, ([Cd]u); N-acetyl-β-d-glucosaminidase, a marker of cellular damage ([NAG]u); and β2-microglobulin, an indicator of reabsorptive dysfunction ([β2MG]u). To relate excretion rates of these substances to existing nephron mass, we normalized the rates to creatinine clearance, an approximation of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (ECd/Ccr, ENAG/Ccr, and Eβ2MG/Ccr). To link the loss of intact nephrons to Cd-induced tubular injury, we examined linear and quadratic regressions of estimated GFR (eGFR) on ECd/Ccr, eGFR on ENAG/Ccr, and ENAG/Ccr on ECd/Ccr. Estimated GFR varied inversely with both ratios, and ENAG/Ccr varied directly with ECd/Ccr. Linear and quadratic regressions of Eβ2MG/Ccr on ECd/Ccr and ENAG/Ccr were significant in moderate and high Cd-exposure groups. The association of ENAG/Ccr with ECd/Ccr implies that both ratios depicted cellular damage per surviving nephron. Consequently, we infer that excreted Cd emanated from injured tubular cells, and we attribute the reduction of eGFR to the injury. We suggest that ECd/Ccr, ENAG/Ccr, and eGFR were associated with one another because each parameter was determined by the tubular burden of Cd.Entities:
Keywords: N-acetyl-β-d-glucosaminidase; cadmium; creatinine clearance; glomerular filtration; nephron mass; nephrotoxicity; β2-microglobulin
Year: 2019 PMID: 31635341 PMCID: PMC6958378 DOI: 10.3390/toxics7040055
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxics ISSN: 2305-6304
Study subjects drawn from three localities.
| Descriptors | All Subjects | Locality | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low Cd | Moderate Cd | High Cd | ||
| Number of subjects | 704 | 172 | 310 | 222 |
| Women (%) | 60.7 | 47.7 | 72.9 | 53.6 * |
| Smoking (%) | 43.6 | 23.8 | 40.6 | 63.1 * |
| Age (years) | 48.34 ± 11.11 | 38.72 ± 10.29 | 47.24 ± 4.72 | 57.34 ± 11.13 † |
| SBP (mmHg) | 122.7 ± 13.5 | 120.1 ± 10.4 | 124.2 ± 14.7 ¶ | − |
| DBP (mmHg) | 78.9 ± 9.5 | 78.1 ± 7.6 | 79.4 ± 10.4 | − |
| MBP (mmHg) | 93.5 ± 9.9 | 92.1 ± 7.9 | 94.3 ± 3.3 ¶¶ | − |
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 90.32 ± 21.84 | 105.46 ± 15.05 | 95.72 ± 16.13 | 71.05 ± 19.65 † |
| CKD prevalence (%) | 9.5 | 0 | 3.5 | 25.2 |
| Kidney disease stage (%) | ||||
| Stage 1 | 54.8 | 84.1 | 66.5 | 16.2 * |
| Stage 2 | 36.6 | 15.9 | 31.0 | 59.9 * |
| Stage 3 | 7.7 | 0 | 2.6 | 20.7 ** |
| Stage 4 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | 3.2 |
| Serum creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.80 (0.70, 1.0) | 0.8 (0.7, 0.9) | 0.8 (0.7, 0.9) | 1.0 (0.9, 1.2) † |
| Urine creatinine (mg/dL) | 97 (53, 156) | 52 (32, 106) | 110 (62, 171) | 115 (69, 158) † |
| Urine Cd (μg/L) | 3.7 (1.1, 8.3) | 0.2 (0.1, 0.6) | 3.9 (2.4, 7.2) | 8.3 (4.7, 13.9) † |
| Urine NAG (units/L) | 6.4 (2.4, 16.6) | 1.8 (1.3, 2.9) | 11.9 (7.1, 19) | 5.3 (2.7, 9.2) † |
| Urine β2MG (μg/L) | 154 (33, 778) | 9.5 (0.3, 42) | 400 (134, 1118) | 171 (64, 1368) † |
| ECd/Ccr × 100, µg/L | 3.1 (1.1, 7.0) | 0.3 (0.3, 0.6) | 3.0 (1.7, 5.0) | 8.2 (4.8, 15) † |
| ENAG/Ccr × 100, units/L | 5.6 (3.4, 9.4) | 3.2 (2.0, 4.1) | 8.0 (5.8, 12) | 4.9 (3.1. 8.3) † |
| Eβ2MG/Ccr × 100, µg/L | 137 (29, 604) | 17 (0.4, 36) | 368 (92, 808) | 162 (64, 176) † |
SBP = systolic blood pressure; DBP = diastolic blood pressure; MBP = Mean arterial pressure; CKD = chronic kidney disease; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; NAG = N-acetyl-β-d-glucosaminidase. MBP = DBP + (pulse pressure)/3, where pulse pressure = SBP − DBP. Data for age and eGFR are arithmetic mean values ± standard deviation (SD). Data for blood pressure are geometric mean values ± SD. Data for all other continuous variables are the median (25th, 75th percentile) values. * Significant % differences among three groups (p < 0.05, Pearson Chi-Square test). ** Significant % differences between two groups (p < 0.001, Pearson Chi-Square test). † Significant mean differences among three groups (p < 0.001, Kruskal–Wallis test). ¶ Significant difference from the low exposure group (p = 0.003, Mann–Whitney U-test). ¶¶ Significant difference from the low exposure group (p = 0.014, Mann–Whitney U-test).
Figure 1ECd/Ccr as a predictor of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Scatterplots compare eGFR to log[(ECd/Ccr) × 105] in subjects grouped by locality (A–C) and in all subjects (D). Quadratic and linear coefficients of determination (R2) are provided together with corresponding equations, standardized β coefficients, and p-values.
Figure 2ENAG/Ccr as a predictor of eGFR. Scatterplots compare eGFR to log[(ENAG/Ccr) × 103] in subjects grouped by locality (A–C) and in all subjects (D). Quadratic and linear coefficients of determination (R2) are provided together with corresponding equations, standardized β coefficients, and p-values.
Slope analysis for comparing rates of eGFR reduction.
| Excretion Rates of Cd or NAG | Number of Subjects | eGFR vs. log[(ECd/Ccr) × 105] or log[(ENAG/Ccr) × 103] | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β Coefficients |
| ||||
| Slope (Unstandardized β) ± SE | Standardized β | ||||
| Log[(ECd/Ccr) × 105] | |||||
| <3 | 168 | −17.62 ± 3.20 | −0.392 | 0.154 | <0.001 |
| ≥3 | 536 | −27.71 ± 2.06 | −0.503 | 0.253 | <0.001 |
| All subjects | 704 | −20.86 ± 1.06 | −0.598 | 0.357 | <0.001 |
| Log[(ENAG/Ccr) × 103] | |||||
| <1.5 | 153 | −15.91 ± 7.62 | −0.168 | 0.028 | 0.038 |
| ≥1.5 | 551 | −28.35 ± 3.35 | −0.339 | 0.115 | <0.001 |
| All subjects | 704 | −22.49 ± 2.19 | −0.361 | 0.131 | <0.001 |
The standardized β coefficient indicates the strength of the association of eGFR with log[(ECd/Ccr) × 105] or log[(ENAG/Ccr) × 103]. R2 values are coefficients of determination that indicate the fraction of eGFR variation explained by ECd/Ccr or ENAG/Ccr. p ≤ 0.05 identifies statistically significant eGFR reduction rates or associations of eGFR with urinary Cd or NAG excretion.
Figure 3ECd/Ccr as a predictor of ENAG/Ccr. Scatterplots compare log[(ENAG/Ccr) × 103] to log[(ECd/Ccr) × 105] in subjects grouped by locality (A–C) and in all subjects (D). Quadratic and linear coefficients of determination (R2) are provided together with corresponding equations, standardized β coefficients, and p-values.
Figure 4ECd/Ccr as a predictor of Eβ2MG/Ccr. Scatterplots compare log[(Eβ2MG/Ccr) × 104] to log[(ECd/Ccr) × 105] in subjects grouped by locality (A–C) and in all subjects (D). Quadratic and linear coefficients of determination (R2) are provided together with corresponding equations, standardized β coefficients, and p-values.
Figure 5ENAG/Ccr as a predictor of Eβ2MG/Ccr. Scatterplots compare log[(ENAG/Ccr) × 103] to log[(Eβ2MG/Ccr) × 104] in subjects grouped by locality (A–C) and in all subjects (D). Quadratic and linear coefficients of determination (R2) are provided together with corresponding equations, standardized β coefficients, and p-values.