Constantine Anetakis, Stella Mitka, Maria Hadjidimitriou, Konstantinos Anagnostopoulos, Theodoros Lialiaris
{"title":"希腊北部成年人的维生素 D 结合蛋白 (DBP)、游离钙二醇和总钙三醇。","authors":"Constantine Anetakis, Stella Mitka, Maria Hadjidimitriou, Konstantinos Anagnostopoulos, Theodoros Lialiaris","doi":"10.61186/rbmb.12.4.652","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>An ongoing debate has been raised on whether is better to use total or free calcidiol as a screening test in the population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In winter and summer, free calcidiol, total calcitriol, and vitamin D binding protein (DBP) concentrations were determined by immunoenzymatic assays in 326 adults (161 males, 165 females). These included 99 osteoporotic patients, 53 type 1 and 51 type 2 diabetics, and 123 athletic healthy persons, all from northern Greece.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the whole sample, free calcidiol mean concentrations differed significantly (p < 0.001) between males (5.53 pg/ml) and females (4.68 pg/ml). Free calcidiol was significantly greater in the athletic healthy group (6.02 pg/ml) than in the three patient groups, and lowest in the osteoporosis group (3.69 pg/ml). Total calcitriol mean concentration did not differ significantly between genders in the whole sample (p = 0.896) or in the study groups, except for type 2 diabetics (males 38.33 pg/ml, females 54.52 pg/ml, p = 0.001). It was significantly less in the osteoporotics (34.61 pg/ml) than in the athletic healthy group (41.65 pg/ml, p = 0.037) and type 1 diabetics (43.73 pg/ml, p = 0.030), whereas it did not differ significantly between the other study groups. The DBP mean concentrations were not significantly different between genders in the whole sample and the study groups nor among the study groups (p = 0.467).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Comparisons with our previously reported results of total calcidiol suggest the measurement of free calcidiol offers nothing more than that, and total calcitriol is not a sensitive measure for assessing vitamin D status.</p>","PeriodicalId":45319,"journal":{"name":"Reports of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology","volume":"12 4","pages":"652-663"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11288245/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vitamin D Binding Protein (DBP), Free Calcidiol, and Total Calcitriol in Adults from Northern Greece.\",\"authors\":\"Constantine Anetakis, Stella Mitka, Maria Hadjidimitriou, Konstantinos Anagnostopoulos, Theodoros Lialiaris\",\"doi\":\"10.61186/rbmb.12.4.652\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>An ongoing debate has been raised on whether is better to use total or free calcidiol as a screening test in the population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In winter and summer, free calcidiol, total calcitriol, and vitamin D binding protein (DBP) concentrations were determined by immunoenzymatic assays in 326 adults (161 males, 165 females). These included 99 osteoporotic patients, 53 type 1 and 51 type 2 diabetics, and 123 athletic healthy persons, all from northern Greece.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the whole sample, free calcidiol mean concentrations differed significantly (p < 0.001) between males (5.53 pg/ml) and females (4.68 pg/ml). Free calcidiol was significantly greater in the athletic healthy group (6.02 pg/ml) than in the three patient groups, and lowest in the osteoporosis group (3.69 pg/ml). Total calcitriol mean concentration did not differ significantly between genders in the whole sample (p = 0.896) or in the study groups, except for type 2 diabetics (males 38.33 pg/ml, females 54.52 pg/ml, p = 0.001). It was significantly less in the osteoporotics (34.61 pg/ml) than in the athletic healthy group (41.65 pg/ml, p = 0.037) and type 1 diabetics (43.73 pg/ml, p = 0.030), whereas it did not differ significantly between the other study groups. The DBP mean concentrations were not significantly different between genders in the whole sample and the study groups nor among the study groups (p = 0.467).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Comparisons with our previously reported results of total calcidiol suggest the measurement of free calcidiol offers nothing more than that, and total calcitriol is not a sensitive measure for assessing vitamin D status.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45319,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reports of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology\",\"volume\":\"12 4\",\"pages\":\"652-663\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11288245/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reports of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.61186/rbmb.12.4.652\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reports of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61186/rbmb.12.4.652","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Vitamin D Binding Protein (DBP), Free Calcidiol, and Total Calcitriol in Adults from Northern Greece.
Background: An ongoing debate has been raised on whether is better to use total or free calcidiol as a screening test in the population.
Methods: In winter and summer, free calcidiol, total calcitriol, and vitamin D binding protein (DBP) concentrations were determined by immunoenzymatic assays in 326 adults (161 males, 165 females). These included 99 osteoporotic patients, 53 type 1 and 51 type 2 diabetics, and 123 athletic healthy persons, all from northern Greece.
Results: In the whole sample, free calcidiol mean concentrations differed significantly (p < 0.001) between males (5.53 pg/ml) and females (4.68 pg/ml). Free calcidiol was significantly greater in the athletic healthy group (6.02 pg/ml) than in the three patient groups, and lowest in the osteoporosis group (3.69 pg/ml). Total calcitriol mean concentration did not differ significantly between genders in the whole sample (p = 0.896) or in the study groups, except for type 2 diabetics (males 38.33 pg/ml, females 54.52 pg/ml, p = 0.001). It was significantly less in the osteoporotics (34.61 pg/ml) than in the athletic healthy group (41.65 pg/ml, p = 0.037) and type 1 diabetics (43.73 pg/ml, p = 0.030), whereas it did not differ significantly between the other study groups. The DBP mean concentrations were not significantly different between genders in the whole sample and the study groups nor among the study groups (p = 0.467).
Conclusion: Comparisons with our previously reported results of total calcidiol suggest the measurement of free calcidiol offers nothing more than that, and total calcitriol is not a sensitive measure for assessing vitamin D status.
期刊介绍:
The Reports of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology (RBMB) is the official journal of the Varastegan Institute for Medical Sciences and is dedicated to furthering international exchange of medical and biomedical science experience and opinion and a platform for worldwide dissemination. The RBMB is a medical journal that gives special emphasis to biochemical research and molecular biology studies. The Journal invites original and review articles, short communications, reports on experiments and clinical cases, and case reports containing new insights into any aspect of biochemistry and molecular biology that are not published or being considered for publication elsewhere. Publications are accepted in the form of reports of original research, brief communications, case reports, structured reviews, editorials, commentaries, views and perspectives, letters to authors, book reviews, resources, news, and event agenda.