Association between Plasma Metal Levels and Diabetes Risk:a Case-control Study in China

LI Xiu Ting YU Peng Fei GAO Yan GUO Wen Hui WANG Jun LIU Xin GU Ai Hua JI Gui Xiang DONG Qiu WANG Bo Shen CAO Ying ZHU Bao Li XIAO Hang

LI Xiu Ting, YU Peng Fei, GAO Yan, GUO Wen Hui, WANG Jun, LIU Xin, GU Ai Hua, JI Gui Xiang, DONG Qiu, WANG Bo Shen, CAO Ying, ZHU Bao Li, XIAO Hang. Association between Plasma Metal Levels and Diabetes Risk:a Case-control Study in China[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2017, 30(7): 482-491. doi: 10.3967/bes2017.064
Citation: LI Xiu Ting, YU Peng Fei, GAO Yan, GUO Wen Hui, WANG Jun, LIU Xin, GU Ai Hua, JI Gui Xiang, DONG Qiu, WANG Bo Shen, CAO Ying, ZHU Bao Li, XIAO Hang. Association between Plasma Metal Levels and Diabetes Risk:a Case-control Study in China[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2017, 30(7): 482-491. doi: 10.3967/bes2017.064

doi: 10.3967/bes2017.064
基金项目: 

Medical Science and Technology Development Foundation, Nanjing Department of Health YKK14169

Jiangsu Provincial Medical Innovation Team CXTDA2017029

Jiangsu Provincial Medical Youth Talent QNRC2016127

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81602919

Association between Plasma Metal Levels and Diabetes Risk:a Case-control Study in China

Funds: 

Medical Science and Technology Development Foundation, Nanjing Department of Health YKK14169

Jiangsu Provincial Medical Innovation Team CXTDA2017029

Jiangsu Provincial Medical Youth Talent QNRC2016127

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81602919

More Information
    Author Bio:

    LI Xiu Ting, female, born in 1987, Doctoral student, majoring in exposure of environmental risk factors and human health

    YU Peng Fei, male, born in 1993, Postgraduate, majoring in the effect of environmental endocrine disruptors on human and animals

    GAO Yan, female, born in 1986, Doctor-in-charge, majoring in risk factors for the development of type 2 diabetes

    Corresponding author: ZHU Bao Li, E-mail:zhubl@jscdc.cn, Tel:86-25-83759982; XIAO Hang, E-mail:hxiao@njmu.edu.cn, Tel:86-25-86868431
    • 关键词:
    •  / 
    •  / 
    •  / 
    •  / 
    •  
  • Table  1.   Detection Limits of ICP-MS for Metal Elements

    Elements Detection Limits (μg/L)
    Vanadium 0.0040
    Chromium 0.0153
    Manganese 0.0213
    Iron 0.4043
    Cobalt 0.0015
    Nickel 0.0540
    Copper 0.0329
    Zinc 0.3189
    Arsenic 0.0181
    Selenium 0.0000
    Rubidium 0.0234
    Strontium 0.0435
    Ruthenium 0.0019
    Rhodium 0.0002
    Palladium 0.0073
    Argentum 0.0054
    Cadmium 0.0023
    Cesium 0.0016
    Barium 0.0642
    Lanthanum 0.0011
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  2.   Descriptive Characteristics of New Diagnosed Cases of Type 2 Diabetes and Controls

    Variables All (N = 551) Cases (N = 122) Controls (N = 429) P
    Gender, n (%)
      Male 216 (39.2) 43 (35.2) 173 (40.3) 0.310a
      Female 335 (60.8) 79 (64.8) 256 (59.7)
    Age, years 66.43 ± 9.36 66.25 ± 9.46 66.48 ± 9.34 0.809b
       < 66, n (%) 234 (42.5) 55 (45.1) 179 (41.7) 0.880a
      66-70, n (%) 136 (24.7) 25 (20.5) 111 (25.9)
       > 70, n (%) 181 (32.8) 42 (34.4) 139 (32.4)
    BMI, kg/m2 24.67 ± 3.32 25.08 ± 3.74 24.55 ± 3.18 0.151b
    Smoking status, n (%)
      Never 463 (84.0) 100 (82.0) 363 (84.6) 0.481a
      Ever 88 (16.0) 22 (18.0) 66 (15.4)
    Drinking status, n (%)
      Never 494 (89.7) 103 (84.4) 391 (91.1) 0.032a
      Ever 57 (10.3) 19 (15.6) 38 (8.9)
    Family history, n (%)
      No 513 (93.1) 104 (85.2) 409 (95.3) 0.000a
      Yes 38 (6.9) 18 (14.8) 20 (4.7)
    FPG, mmol/L 6.09 ± 3.18 7.55 ± 2.14 5.67 ± 3.30 0.000b
      Note. aχ2 test for the distribution between cases and controls. bStudent t-test for mean comparison between cases and controls.
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  3.   Metal Concentrations in New Diagnosed Diabetes and Controls

    Variables All Cases Controls Pa
    Median
    (μg/L)
    Quartile Range
    (μg/L)
    Median
    (μg/L)
    Quartile Range
    (μg/L)
    Median
    (μg/L)
    Quartile Range
    (μg/L)
    Vanadium 0.191 0.138 0.234 0.180 0.177 0.125 0.000
    Chromium 1.952 1.114 2.286 1.389 1.898 1.048 0.000
    Manganese 1.954 1.242 2.725 1.930 1.828 0.944 0.000
    Iron 1117.162 451.861 1174.648 459.733 1104.439 442.876 0.139
    Cobalt 0.294 0.124 0.292 0.132 0.297 0.122 0.563
    Nickel 6.478 3.640 5.968 3.903 6.551 3.570 0.191
    Copper 815.755 261.226 932.164 268.340 786.388 244.672 0.000
    Zinc 590.108 196.973 634.382 191.369 575.205 201.633 0.000
    Arsenic 0.615 0.784 0.754 0.584 0.536 0.790 0.002
    Selenium 16.390 11.875 18.565 9.279 15.447 12.538 0.000
    Rubidium 277.661 82.564 274.967 66.249 278.579 93.801 0.501
    Strontium 31.456 12.724 33.248 14.153 30.539 11.489 0.000
    Ruthenium 0.043 0.061 0.046 0.069 0.042 0.057 0.398
    Rhodium 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.545
    Palladium 0.287 0.716 0.373 0.609 0.231 0.693 0.002
    Argentum 0.411 0.462 0.503 0.398 0.390 0.497 0.730
    Cadmium 0.071 0.065 0.096 0.102 0.065 0.061 0.000
    Cesium 0.821 0.404 0.957 0.375 0.779 0.382 0.000
    Barium 5.115 4.633 8.173 13.656 4.802 3.202 0.000
    Lanthanum 0.035 0.034 0.038 0.032 0.035 0.036 0.333
      Note. aNonparametric test for the comparison of metal levels in abnormal distribution.
    下载: 导出CSV

    Table  4.   Comparisons of Diabetes risk According to the Three Tertiles of Plasma Metals

    Variables Q1 (lowest)
    (μg/L)
    Q2 (middle)
    (μg/L)
    Q3 (highest)
    (μg/L)
    Pb
    Vanadium < 0.151 0.151- 0.235
      Case: N (%) 22 (18.03) 40 (32.79) 60 (49.18) 0.000
      Control: N (%) 162 (37.76) 143 (33.33) 124 (28.91)
      All (%) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22) 184 (33.39)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 2.100 (1.178-3.744) 3.589 (2.040-6.314)
    Chromium < 1.623 1.623-2.321 > 2.321
      Case: N (%) 30 (24.59) 33 (27.05) 59 (48.36) 0.000
      Control: N (%) 152 (35.43) 151 (35.20) 126 (29.37)
      All (%) 182 (33.03) 184 (33.39) 185 (33.58)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.066 (0.605-1.878) 2.219 (1.319-3.733)
    Manganese < 1.671 1.671-2.416 > 2.416
      Case: N (%) 14 (11.48) 33 (27.05) 75 (61.47) 0.000
      Control: N (%) 169 (39.39) 152 (35.43) 108 (25.18)
      All (%) 183 (33.21) 185 (33.58) 183 (33.21)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 2.528 (1.286-4.969) 7.880 (4.169-14.893)
    Iron < 988.245 988.245-1293.406 > 1293.406
      Case: N (%) 34 (27.87) 45 (36.89) 43 (35.24) 0.246
      Control: N (%) 150 (34.97) 139 (32.40) 140 (32.63)
      All (%) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.418 (0.847-2.373) 1.591(0.900-2.814)
    Cobalt < 0.259 0.259-0.340 > 0.340
      Case: N (%) 45 (36.89) 38 (31.15) 39 (31.96) 0.520
      Control: N (%) 140 (32.63) 147 (34.27) 142 (33.10)
      All (%) 185 (33.58) 185 (33.58) 181 (32.84)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 0.820 (0.495-1.357) 0.822 (0.496-1.364)
    Nickel < 5.365 5.365-7.713 > 7.713
      Case: N (%) 53 (43.44) 30 (24.59) 39 (31.97) 0.074
      Control: N (%) 130 (30.30) 154 (35.90) 145 (33.80)
      All (%) 183 (33.22) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 0.416 (0.245-0.706) 0.637 (0.383-1.060)
    Copper < 729.661 729.661-901.400 > 901.400
      Case: N (%) 15 (12.30) 37 (30.32) 70 (57.38) 0.000
      Control: N (%) 168 (39.16) 147 (34.27) 114 (26.57)
      All (%) 183 (33.22) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 2.796 (1.456-5.368) 6.862 (3.644-12.920)
    Zinc < 529.777 529.777-649.232 > 649.232
      Case: N (%) 27 (22.13) 43 (35.25) 52 (42.62) 0.002
      Control: N (%) 156 (36.36) 141 (32.87) 132 (30.77)
      All (%) 183 (33.22) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.964 (1.132-3.407) 2.261 (1.285-3.979)
    Arsenic < 0.389 0.389-0.915 > 0.915
      Case: N (%) 22 (18.03) 57 (46.72) 43 (35.25) 0.008
      Control: N (%) 162 (37.76) 127 (29.60) 140 (32.64)
      All (%) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 3.436 (1.956-6.037) 2.204 (1.244-3.905)
    Selenium < 12.774 12.774-19.825 > 19.825
      Case: N (%) 13 (10.66) 60 (49.18) 49 (40.16) 0.000
      Control: N (%) 171 (39.86) 124 (28.90) 134 (31.24)
      All (%) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 8.134 (4.088-16.182) 6.138 (3.012-12.509)
    Rubidium < 251.164 251.164-300.669 > 300.669
      Case: N (%) 32 (26.23) 54 (44.26) 36 (29.51) 0.615
      Control: N (%) 152 (35.43) 129 (30.07) 148 (34.50)
      All (%) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22) 184 (33.39)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 2.286 (1.354-3.860) 1.057 (0.578-1.933)
    Strontium < 28.225 28.225-36.059 > 36.059
      Case: N (%) 28 (22.95) 40 (32.79) 54 (44.26) 0.001
      Control: N (%) 156 (36.36) 144 (33.57) 129 (30.07)
      All (%) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.505 (0.866-2.616) 2.151 (1.273-3.636)
    Ruthenium < 0.027 0.027-0.065 > 0.065
      Case: N (%) 34 (27.87) 45 (36.89) 43 (35.24) 0.246
      Control: N (%) 150 (34.97) 139 (32.40) 140 (32.63)
      All (%) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.349 (0.803-2.267) 1.277 (0.749-2.179)
    Rhodium < 0.000 0.000-0.003 > 0.003
      Case: N (%) 64 (52.46) 37 (30.33) 21 (17.21) 0.286
      Control: N (%) 227 (52.91) 87 (20.28) 115 (26.81)
      All (%) 291 (52.81) 124 (22.50) 136 (24.69)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.568 (0.962-2.557) 0.686 (0.394-1.194)
    Palladium < 0.100 0.100-0.493 > 0.493
      Case: N (%) 23 (18.85) 53 (43.44) 46 (37.71) 0.004
      Control: N (%) 160 (37.30) 131 (30.54) 138 (32.16)
      All (%) 183 (33.22) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 2.409 (1.370-4.237) 2.236 (1.266-3.952)
    Argentum < 0.300 0.300-0.636 > 0.636
      Case: N (%) 36 (29.51) 48 (39.34) 38 (31.15) 0.801
      Control: N (%) 147 (34.27) 137 (31.93) 145 (33.80)
      All (%) 183 (33.21) 185 (33.58) 183 (33.21)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.458 (0.870-2.442) 0.929 (0.544-1.587)
    Cadmium < 0.051 0.051-0.096 > 0.096
      Case: N (%) 28 (22.95) 33 (27.05) 61 (50.00) 0.000
      Control: N (%) 153 (35.66) 152 (35.43) 124 (28.91)
      All (%) 181 (32.84) 185 (33.58) 185 (33.58)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.086 (0.617-1.912) 2.511 (1.486-4.245)
    Cesium < 0.700 0.700-0.951 > 0.951
      Case: N (%) 21 (17.21) 37 (30.33) 64 (52.46) 0.000
      Control: N (%) 163 (38.00) 147 (34.27) 119 (27.73)
      All (%) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.847 (1.015-3.361) 3.908 (2.223-6.869)
    Barium < 4.134 4.134-6.786 > 6.786
      Case: N (%) 18 (14.75) 28 (22.95) 76 (62.30) 0.000
      Control: N (%) 165 (38.46) 157 (36.60) 107 (24.94)
      All (%) 183 (33.21) 185 (33.58) 183 (33.21)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.583 (0.823-3.046) 6.184 (3.448-11.093)
    Lanthanum < 0.026 0.026-0.049 > 0.049
      Case: N (%) 36 (29.50) 43 (35.25) 43 (35.25) 0.379
      Control: N (%) 148 (34.50) 140 (32.63) 141 (32.87)
      All (%) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22) 184 (33.39)
      Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.236 (0.741-2.062) 1.202 (0.712-2.029)
      Note. aAdjusted for age, gender, BMI, family history, smoking and drinking status in the logistic regression model. bχ2 test for the distribution of different metal levels.
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] Liu H, Zhang S, Wang L, et al. Fasting and 2-hour plasma glucose, and HbA1c in pregnancy and the postpartum risk of diabetes among Chinese women with gestational diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2016; 112, 30-6. doi:  10.1016/j.diabres.2015.11.007
    [2] Zhao J, Liu G L, Wei Y, et al. Association of plasma glucose, insulin, and cardiovascular risk factors in overweight and obese children. Saudi Med J, 2014; 35, 132-7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260375209_Association_of_plasma_glucose_insulin_and_cardiovascular_risk_factors_in_overweight_and_obese_children
    [3] Lammertyn L, Schutte R, Schutte AE, et al. Associations of cholesterol and glucose with cardiovascular dysfunction in black Africans:the SABPA study. Clin Exp Hypertens, 2011; 33, 159-66. doi:  10.3109/10641963.2010.531842
    [4] Gyberg V, De Bacquer D, Kotseva K, et al. Screening for dysglycaemia in patients with coronary artery disease as reflected by fasting glucose, oral glucose tolerance test, and HbA1c:a report from EUROASPIRE Ⅳ——a survey from the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J, 2015; 36, 1171-7. doi:  10.1093/eurheartj/ehv008
    [5] Agarwal S, Zaman T, Tuzcu EM, et al. Heavy metals and cardiovascular disease:results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2006. Angiology, 2011; 62, 422-9. doi:  10.1177/0003319710395562
    [6] Myong JP, Kim HR, Jang TW, et al. Association between blood cadmium levels and 10-year coronary heart disease risk in the general Korean population:the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2008-2010. PLoS One, 2014; 9, e111909. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0111909
    [7] Solenkova NV, Newman JD, Berger JS, et al. Metal pollutants and cardiovascular disease:mechanisms and consequences of exposure. Am Heart J, 2014; 168, 812-22. doi:  10.1016/j.ahj.2014.07.007
    [8] Park K, Mozaffarian D. Omega-3 fatty acids, mercury, and selenium in fish and the risk of cardiovascular diseases. Curr Atheroscler Rep, 2010; 12, 414-22. doi:  10.1007/s11883-010-0138-z
    [9] Aylward LL, Kirman CR, Schoeny R, et al. Evaluation of biomonitoring data from the CDC National Exposure Report in a risk assessment context:perspectives across chemicals. Environ Health Perspect, 2013; 121, 287-94. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/osp_sciencedisplay.cfm?dirEntryID=253684&ref_site=SI&kwords=BENZENE
    [10] Crinnion WJ. The CDC fourth national report on human exposure to environmental chemicals:what it tells us about our toxic burden and how it assist environmental medicine physicians. Altern Med Rev, 2010; 15, 101-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20806995
    [11] Motta IS, Volpato GT, Damasceno DC, et al. Contamination index. A novel parameter for metal and pesticide analyses in maternal blood and umbilical cord. Acta Cir Bras, 2016; 31, 490-7. doi:  10.1590/S0102-865020160070000010
    [12] Son HS, Kim SG, Suh BS, et al. Association of cadmium with diabetes in middle-aged residents of abandoned metal mines:the first health effect surveillance for residents in abandoned metal mines. Ann Occup Environ Med, 2015; 27, 20. doi:  10.1186/s40557-015-0071-2
    [13] Barregard L, Bergstrom G, Fagerberg B. Cadmium, type 2 diabetes, and kidney damage in a cohort of middle-aged women. Environ Res, 2014; 135, 311-6. doi:  10.1016/j.envres.2014.09.017
    [14] Shapiro GD, Dodds L, Arbuckle TE, et al. Exposure to phthalates, bisphenol A and metals in pregnancy and the association with impaired glucose tolerance and gestational diabetes mellitus:The MIREC study. Environ Int, 2015; 83, 63-71. doi:  10.1016/j.envint.2015.05.016
    [15] Iavicoli I, Fontana L, Bergamaschi A. The effects of metals as endocrine disruptors. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev, 2009; 12, 206-23. doi:  10.1080/10937400902902062
    [16] Nassar N, Abeywardana P, Barker A, et al. Parental occupational exposure to potential endocrine disrupting chemicals and risk of hypospadias in infants. Occup Environ Med, 2010; 67, 585-9. doi:  10.1136/oem.2009.048272
    [17] Del PL, Mantovani A, Luce A, et al. Endocrine disruptors and female cancer:Informing the patients (Review). Oncol Rep, 2015; 34, 3-11. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michele_Caraglia/publication/277081207_Endocrine_disruptors_and_female_cancer_Informing_the_patients_Review/links/55dc368708aec156b9b00c22.pdf?origin=publication_detail
    [18] Sun HJ, Xiang P, Luo J, et al. Mechanisms of arsenic disruption on gonadal, adrenal and thyroid endocrine systems in humans:A review. Environ Int, 2016; 95, 61-8. doi:  10.1016/j.envint.2016.07.020
    [19] Feng W, Cui X, Liu B, et al. Association of urinary metal profiles with altered glucose levels and diabetes risk:a population-based study in China. PLoS One, 2015; 10, e123742. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275238669_Association_of_Urinary_Metal_Profiles_with_Altered_Glucose_Levels_and_Diabetes_Risk_A_Population-Based_Study_in_China
    [20] Liu B, Feng W, Wang J, et al. Association of urinary metals levels with type 2 diabetes risk in coke oven workers. Environ Pollut, 2016; 210, 1-8. doi:  10.1016/j.envpol.2015.11.046
    [21] Chen H, Tan C, Lin Z, et al. The diagnostics of diabetes mellitus based on ensemble modeling and hair/urine element level analysis. Comput Biol Med, 2014; 50, 70-5. doi:  10.1016/j.compbiomed.2014.04.012
    [22] Akerstrom M, Barregard L, Lundh T, et al. Variability of urinary cadmium excretion in spot urine samples, first morning voids, and 24 h urine in a healthy non-smoking population:implications for study design. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol, 2014; 24, 171-9. doi:  10.1038/jes.2013.58
    [23] Kazi TG, Afridi HI, Kazi N, et al. Copper, chromium, manganese, iron, nickel, and zinc levels in biological samples of diabetes mellitus patients. Biol Trace Elem Res, 2008; 122, 1-18. doi:  10.1007/s12011-007-8062-y
    [24] Liu G, Sun L, Pan A, et al. Nickel exposure is associated with the prevalence of type2 diabetes in Chinese adults. Int J Epidemiol, 2015; 44, 240-8. doi:  10.1093/ije/dyu200
    [25] Hansen AF, Simic A, Asvold BO, et al. Trace elements in early phase type 2 diabetes mellitus-A population-based study. The HUNT study in Norway. J Trace Elem Med Biol, 2017; 40, 46-53. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/28159221
    [26] Yang AM, Bai YN, Pu HQ, et al. Prevalence of metabolic syndrome in Chinese nickel-exposed workers. Biomed Environ Sci, 2014; 27, 475-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24961859
    [27] Forte G, Bocca B, Peruzzu A, et al. Blood metals concentration in type 1 and type 2 diabetics. Biol Trace Elem Res, 2013; 156, 79-90. doi:  10.1007/s12011-013-9858-6
    [28] Afridi HI, Kazi TG, Talpur FN, et al. Evaluation of trace and toxic elements in the samples of different cigarettes and their impact on human health of Irish diabetes mellitus patients. Clin Lab, 2015; 61, 123-40. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25807646
    [29] Yarat A, Nokay S, Ipbuker A, et al. Serum nickel levels of diabetic patients and healthy controls by AAS with a graphite furnace. Biol Trace Elem Res, 1992; 35, 273-80. doi:  10.1007/BF02783771
    [30] Feseke SK, St-Laurent J, Anassour-Sidi E, et al. Arsenic exposure and type 2 diabetes:results from the 2007-2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can, 2015; 35, 63-72. doi:  10.24095/hpcdp.35.4.01
    [31] Islam R, Khan I, Hassan SN, et al. Association between type 2 diabetes and chronic arsenic exposure in drinking water:a cross sectional study in Bangladesh. Environ Health, 2012; 11, 38. doi:  10.1186/1476-069X-11-38
    [32] Kim NH, Mason CC, Nelson RG, et al. Arsenic exposure and incidence of type 2 diabetes in Southwestern American Indians. Am J Epidemiol, 2013; 177, 962-9. doi:  10.1093/aje/kws329
    [33] Kuo CC, Howard BV, Umans JG, et al. Arsenic exposure, arsenic metabolism, and incident diabetes in the strong heart study. Diabetes Care, 2015; 38, 620-7. http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4370323/
    [34] Walton FS, Harmon AW, Paul DS, et al. Inhibition of insulin-dependent glucose uptake by trivalent arsenicals:possible mechanism of arsenic-induced diabetes. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 2004; 198, 424-33. doi:  10.1016/j.taap.2003.10.026
    [35] Huang CF, Chen YW, Yang CY, et al. Arsenic and diabetes:current perspectives. Kaohsiung J Med Sci, 2011; 27, 402-10. doi:  10.1016/j.kjms.2011.05.008
    [36] Liu S, Guo X, Wu B, et al. Arsenic induces diabetic effects through beta-cell dysfunction and increased gluconeogenesis in mice. Sci Rep, 2014; 4, 6894. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4219158/
    [37] Patel HV, Kalia K. Role of hepatic and pancreatic oxidative stress in arsenic induced diabetic condition in Wistar rats. J Environ Biol, 2013; 34, 231-6. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hitesh_Patel8/publication/260761785_Role_of_hepatic_and_pancreatic_oxidative_stress_in_arsenic_induced_diabetic_condition_in_Wistar_rats/links/004635142a8a524801000000.pdf?disableCoverPage=true
    [38] Skalnaya MG, Skalny AV, Tinkov AA. Serum copper, zinc, and iron levels, and markers of carbohydrate metabolism in postmenopausal women with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Trace Elem Med Biol, 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27881232
    [39] Askari G, Iraj B, Salehi-Abargouei A, et al. The association between serum selenium and gestational diabetes mellitus:a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Trace Elem Med Biol, 2015; 29, 195-201. doi:  10.1016/j.jtemb.2014.09.006
    [40] Zhang H, Yan C, Yang Z, et al. Alterations of serum trace elements in patients with type 2 diabetes. J Trace Elem Med Biol, 2017; 40, 91-6. doi:  10.1016/j.jtemb.2016.12.017
    [41] Akbaraly TN, Arnaud J, Rayman MP, et al. Plasma selenium and risk of dysglycemia in an elderly French population:results from the prospective Epidemiology of Vascular Ageing Study. Nutr Metab (Lond), 2010; 7, 21. doi:  10.1186/1743-7075-7-21
    [42] Kong FJ, Ma LL, Chen SP, et al. Serum selenium level and gestational diabetes mellitus:a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr J, 2016; 15, 94. doi:  10.1186/s12937-016-0211-8
    [43] Faghihi T, Radfar M, Barmal M, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of selenium supplementation in patients with type 2 diabetes:effects on glucose homeostasis, oxidative stress, and lipid profile. Am J Ther, 2014; 21, 491-5. doi:  10.1097/MJT.0b013e318269175f
    [44] Laclaustra M, Navas-Acien A, Stranges S, et al. Serum selenium concentrations and diabetes in U.S. adults:National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2004. Environ Health Perspect, 2009; 117, 1409-13. doi:  10.1289/ehp.0900704
    [45] Farrokhian A, Bahmani F, Taghizadeh M, et al. Selenium Supplementation Affects Insulin Resistance and Serum hs-CRP in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Coronary Heart Disease. Horm Metab Res, 2016; 48, 263-8. doi:  10.1055/s-00000025
    [46] Lu CW, Chang HH, Yang KC, et al. High serum selenium levels are associated with increased risk for diabetes mellitus independent of central obesity and insulin resistance. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care, 2016; 4, e253. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306089869_High_serum_selenium_levels_are_associated_with_increased_risk_for_diabetes_mellitus_independent_of_central_obesity_and_insulin_resistance
    [47] Wang XL, Yang TB, Wei J, et al. Association between serum selenium level and type 2 diabetes mellitus:a non-linear dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies. Nutr J, 2016; 15, 48. doi:  10.1186%2Fs12937-016-0169-6.pdf
    [48] Hamdan HZ, Elbashir LM, Hamdan SZ, et al. Zinc and selenium levels in women with gestational diabetes mellitus at Medani Hospital, Sudan. J Obstet Gynaecol, 2014; 34, 567-70. doi:  10.3109/01443615.2014.919576
    [49] Othman FB, Mohamed HJ, Sirajudeen KN, et al. The influence of selenium status on body composition, oxidative DNA damage and total antioxidant capacity in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus:A case-control study. J Trace Elem Med Biol, 2016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X16302280
    [50] Jacquet A, Ounnas F, Lenon M, et al. Chronic Exposure to Low-Level Cadmium in Diabetes:Role of Oxidative Stress and Comparison with Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Curr Drug Targets, 2016; 17, 1385-413. doi:  10.2174/1389450116666150531151228
    [51] Rana SV, Rastogi N. Antioxidative enzymes in the liver and kidney of alloxan induced diabetic rats and their implications in cadmium toxicity. Physiol Chem Phys Med NMR, 2000; 32, 67-74. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12352159_Antioxidative_Enzymes_in_the_Liver_and_Kidney_of_Alloxan_Induced_Diabetic_Rats_and_their_Implications_in_Cadmium_Toxicity
    [52] Trevino S, Waalkes MP, Flores HJ, et al. Chronic cadmium exposure in rats produces pancreatic impairment and insulin resistance in multiple peripheral tissues. Arch Biochem Biophys, 2015; 583, 27-35. doi:  10.1016/j.abb.2015.07.010
  • [1] WANG Qi Qi, YU Shi Cheng, XU Cheng Dong, LIU Jian Jun, LI Yuan Qiu, ZHANG Man Hui, LONG Xiao Juan, LIU Yun Ning, BI Yu Fang, ZHAO Wen Hua, YAO Hong Yan.  Association between Selenium in Soil and Diabetes in Chinese Residents Aged 35–74 Years: Results from the 2010 National Survey of Chronic Diseases and Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2020, 33(4): 260-268. doi: 10.3967/bes2020.035
    [2] LIU Jia Qing, NIU Qing, HU Yun Hua, LI Yu, WANG Hai Xia, XU Shang Zhi, DING Yu Song, LI Shu Gang, MA Ru Lin.  The Bidirectional Effects of Arsenic on miRNA-21: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2018, 31(9): 654-666. doi: 10.3967/bes2018.090
    [3] Kamila Widziewicz, Wioletta Rogula-Kozłowska, Krzysztof Loska, Karolina Kociszewska, Grzegorz Majewski.  Health Risk Impacts of Exposure to Airborne Metals and Benzo(a)Pyrene during Episodes of High PM10 Concentrations in Poland . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2018, 31(1): 23-36. doi: 10.3967/bes2018.003
    [4] WEI Bing Gan, YE Bi Xiong, YU Jiang Ping, YANG Lin Sheng, LI Hai Rong, XIA Ya Juan, WU Ke Gong.  Blood Pressure Associated with Arsenic Methylation and Arsenic Metabolism Caused by Chronic Exposure to Arsenic in Tube Well Water . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2017, 30(5): 333-342. doi: 10.3967/bes2017.044
    [5] LIANG Zhu, QIU Qiao Yan, WU Jia Hui, ZHOU Jing Wen, XU Tian, ZHANG Ming Zhi, ZHANG Yong Hong, ZHANG Shao Yan.  Alcohol Drinking, Dyslipidemia, and Diabetes:A Population-based Prospective Cohort Study among Inner Mongolians in China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2016, 29(8): 555-562. doi: 10.3967/bes2016.074
    [6] RUAN Ye, YAN Qing Hua, XU Ji Ying, YANG Qun Di, YAO Hai Hong, LI Rui, SHI Yan.  Epidemiology of Diabetes in Adults Aged 35 and Older from Shanghai, China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2016, 29(6): 408-416. doi: 10.3967/bes2016.053
    [7] LI Shu Gang, DING Yu Song, NIU Qiang, XU Shang Zhi, PANG Li Juan, MA Ru Lin, JING Ming Xia, FENG Gang Ling, LIU Jia Ming, GUO Shu Xia.  Grape Seed Proanthocyanidin Extract Alleviates Arsenic-induced Oxidative Reproductive Toxicity in Male Mice . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2015, 28(4): 272-280. doi: 10.3967/bes2015.038
    [8] Barbara Brodziak-Dopiera, Jerzy Kwapuliski, Krzysztof Sobczyk, Danuta Wiechua.  Chromium Content in the Human Hip Joint Tissues . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2015, 28(2): 89-96. doi: 10.3967/bes2015.011
    [9] YANG Ai Min, CHENG Ning, PU Hong Quan, LIU Si Min, LI Juan Sheng, BASSIG Bryan A., DAI Min.  Metal Exposure and Risk of Diabetes and Prediabetes among Chinese Occupational Workers . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2015, 28(12): 875-883. doi: 10.3967/bes2015.121
    [10] MI Sheng Quan, YIN Peng, HU Nan, LI Jian Hong, CHEN Xiao Rong, CHEN Bo, YAN Liu Xia, ZHAO Wen Hua.  BMI, WC, WHtR, VFI and BFI:Which Indictor is the Most Efficient Screening Index on Type 2 Diabetes in Chinese Community Population . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2013, 26(6): 485-491. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2013.06.009
    [11] MA Hui, GAO Xin, LIN Huan Dong, HU Yu, LI Xiao Ming, GAO Jian, ZHAO Nai Qing.  Glycated Haemoglobin in Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus and Pre-diabetes among Middle-aged and Elderly Population: Shanghai Changfeng Study . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2013, 26(3): 155-162. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2013.03.001
    [12] YUAN Yan, BIAN Jian Chun, LIU Xue Zhong, ZHANG Ying, SUN Ya, LIU Zong Ping.  Oxidative Stress and Apoptotic Changes of Rat Cerebral Cortical NeuronsExposed to Cadmium in Vitro . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2012, 25(2): 172-181. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2012.02.008
    [13] HE Yu Na, FESKENS EJ, LI Yan Ping, ZHANG Jian, FU Ping, MA Guan Sheng, YANG Xiao Guang.  Association between High Fat-low Carbohydrate Diet Score and Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes in Chinese Population . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2012, 25(4): 373-382. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2012.04.001
    [14] GAO Fei, PAN Jie Min, HOU Xu Hong, FANG Qi Chen, LU Hui Juan, TANG Jun Ling, GU Hui Lin, PAN Zhi Jian, YAO You Hua, SHEN Wei Zhen, JIA Wei Ping.  Liver Enzymes Concentrations Are Closely Related to Pre-diabetes: Findings of the Shanghai Diabetes Study Ⅱ (SHDS Ⅱ) . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2012, 25(1): 30-37. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2012.01.005
    [15] MILENA KATARANOVSKI, SRDJA JANKOVI(C), DRAGAN KATARANOVSKI, JELENA (S)TOSI(C), DESA BOGOJEVI(C).  Gender Differences in Acute Cadmium-Induced Systemic Inflammation in Rats . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2009, 22(1): 1-7.
    [16] GONG-LIANG LIU, JU-FANG WANG, ZHI-YONG LI, SHI-ZHONG LIANG, XIAO-NING WANG.  Immunoassay for Cadmium Detection and Quantification . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2009, 22(3): 188-193.
    [17] MIN YANG, CHANG-CHUN QIU, WEI CHEN, LING-LING XU, MIAO YU, HONG-DING XIANG.  Identification of a Regulatory Single Nucleotide Polymorphism in the Adiponectin (APM1) Gene Associated with Type2 Diabetes in Han Nationality . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2008, 21(6): 454-459.
    [18] JYOTI BARTHWAL, SMITHA NAIR, POONAM KAKKAR.  Heavy Metal Accumulation in Medicinal Plants Collected from Environmentally Different Sites . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2008, 21(4): 319-324.
    [19] LI-JIAN LEI, TAI-YI JIN, YUAN-FEN ZHOU.  Insulin Expression in Rats Exposed to Cadmium . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2007, 20(4): 295-301.
    [20] QI YANG, JIAN-LONG WANG, ZHI Xing.  Biosorption of Cadmium by Fungal Biomass of Aspergillus niger . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2005, 18(3): 141-145.
  • 加载中
计量
  • 文章访问数:  1106
  • HTML全文浏览量:  198
  • PDF下载量:  91
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2017-02-16
  • 录用日期:  2017-05-23
  • 刊出日期:  2017-07-01

Association between Plasma Metal Levels and Diabetes Risk:a Case-control Study in China

doi: 10.3967/bes2017.064
    基金项目:

    Medical Science and Technology Development Foundation, Nanjing Department of Health YKK14169

    Jiangsu Provincial Medical Innovation Team CXTDA2017029

    Jiangsu Provincial Medical Youth Talent QNRC2016127

    National Natural Science Foundation of China 81602919

    作者简介:

    LI Xiu Ting, female, born in 1987, Doctoral student, majoring in exposure of environmental risk factors and human health

    YU Peng Fei, male, born in 1993, Postgraduate, majoring in the effect of environmental endocrine disruptors on human and animals

    GAO Yan, female, born in 1986, Doctor-in-charge, majoring in risk factors for the development of type 2 diabetes

    通讯作者: ZHU Bao Li, E-mail:zhubl@jscdc.cn, Tel:86-25-83759982; XIAO Hang, E-mail:hxiao@njmu.edu.cn, Tel:86-25-86868431

English Abstract

LI Xiu Ting, YU Peng Fei, GAO Yan, GUO Wen Hui, WANG Jun, LIU Xin, GU Ai Hua, JI Gui Xiang, DONG Qiu, WANG Bo Shen, CAO Ying, ZHU Bao Li, XIAO Hang. Association between Plasma Metal Levels and Diabetes Risk:a Case-control Study in China[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2017, 30(7): 482-491. doi: 10.3967/bes2017.064
Citation: LI Xiu Ting, YU Peng Fei, GAO Yan, GUO Wen Hui, WANG Jun, LIU Xin, GU Ai Hua, JI Gui Xiang, DONG Qiu, WANG Bo Shen, CAO Ying, ZHU Bao Li, XIAO Hang. Association between Plasma Metal Levels and Diabetes Risk:a Case-control Study in China[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2017, 30(7): 482-491. doi: 10.3967/bes2017.064
    • One of the well-known independent risk factors for type 2 diabetes is fasting plasma glucose (FPG)[1], which may also increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)[2-4]. In recent years, epidemiological evidence has supported the idea that toxic heavy metals, including cobalt, arsenic, selenium, cadmium, iron, and copper, are associated with the prevalence of CVD[5-8]. In fact, some metals can persist in the living and working environment for several years, and some heavy metals (such as nickel, cadmium, arsenic, and argentum) even have biological half-lives of more than several years[9-11], which makes them a public health concern. Nevertheless, evidence for the association of heavy metals with diabetes or FPG is still limited or due to controversies.

      Son et al.[12] found environmental exposure to cadmium in abandoned mine residents to be associated with diabetes. Barregard et al.[13] also found a significant interaction between high concentrations of blood cadmium (B-Cd) and diabetes mellitus (DM), providing support for the hypothesis that adults with DM have a higher risk of renal glomerular damage from cadmium exposure than those without DM. Shapiro et al.[14] observed dose-response relationships between four metals (lead, cadmium, mercury, and arsenic) and the incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), only plasma arsenic levels displayed a significant association with GDM, but no statistically significant associations were observed between cadmium and GDM. A significant association was observed between cerebrovascular disease (CCVD) and urinary cobalt in a previous study in the USA[5], but in a study investigating the risk of diabetes and prediabetes among occupational workers, higher levels of urinary cobalt was associated with an increased risk of diabetes in male subjects only. Moreover, their research also uncovered significant associations between nickel, copper, and diabetes. Many of the above-mentioned chemicals are used extensively in everyday consumer products and are ubiquitous in our living environment. However, there are limited epidemiologic data regarding the risk of metabolic dysfunction associated with metal element exposure and a variety of metal levels in the blood of the Han Chinese population. Consequently, more studies are needed to confirm the observed associations and explore new findings.

      Based on the above background information, we aimed to explore the associations of type 2 diabetes risk with the plasma levels of 20 trace elements as well as heavy metals in the present study, including vanadium, manganese, iron, chromium, cobalt, copper, nickel, zinc, arsenic, selenium, rubidium, strontium, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, argentum, cadmium, cesium, barium, and lanthanum, among 551 Han Chinese adults recruited from a community physical examination clinic in Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China.

    • The subjects in our study were examined and recruited between April 2014 and July 2016. The source population consisted of community residents in Suzhou City. We selected both cases and controls from the same City for the reason of more similar living environment and dietary habits comparing to different cities, which may be confounders for type 2 diabetes.

      The diagnostic criteria for new cases of diabetes were based on blood glucose levels, defined as random plasma glucose concentrations ≥ 11.1 mmol/L plus symptoms of diabetes, 2-hour post-load oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) ≥ 11.1 mmol/L, or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥ 7.0 mmol/L. In addition, an HbA1c ≥ 6.5% has been accepted as a diagnostic criterion for DM. Adults who were selected as newly diagnosed cases should not have been previously diagnosed with type 2 diabetes by a physician and should not be current or past users of any oral hypoglycemic drugs or insulin. However, the definitions of newly diagnosed diabetes were determined after professional medical discussions with learned and experienced endocrinologists from the physical examination center.

      Each subject donated 5-mL venous blood samples for subsequent blood testing. FPG was assayed with an automated biochemical analyzer (Randox Laboratories Ltd., UK) using the enzymatic colorimetric method. Clinical laboratory technicians working in Nanjing Prevention and Treatment Center for Occupational Diseases carried out the experiment according to standard operation procedures.

    • Subject information was collected via questionnaire administered by trained interviewers in the form of face-to-face interviews. The questionnaire generally included demographic data, past and present medical conditions, pharmaceutical preparations, physical activity and diet during daily life, hereditary factors, drinking status, and smoking and passive smoking status. In our study, ever drinkers were identified as subjects who drank a bottle of beer or 50 g of wine per day for at least one year, and everyone else was classified as a never drinker. Workers who had one cigarette per day for at least one year were identified as ever smokers, and all others were never smokers.

    • In the first round of selection, subjects who had been diagnosed with diabetes by professional endocrinologists and had being undergoing treatment or taking medication previously or presently were excluded from our study, as we sought newly diagnosed patients who had never undergone therapeutic treatment.

      For the following analyses, we excluded subjects with missing blood samples, missing blood glucose data, or abnormal blood biochemical levels, which would probably have resulted in abnormal plasma outputs of metal elements. Adults whose blood did not qualify for plasma detection were also excluded. In addition, we excluded participants with missing investigative or physical examination data (e.g., missing height, weight, systolic or diastolic pressure, smoking or drinking status, total cholesterol or triglycerides, etc.).

      Each recruited newly diagnosed case of type 2 diabetes was well matched with 1-4 controls. The cases were selected without any restriction on age or sex, while the controls, which were frequency-matched to the cases by age, gender, and BMI, consisted of individuals from the same community who were seeking health care from the Suzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention at the same time. The final participant population consisted of 551 subjects (122 newly diagnosed cases of type 2 diabetes and 429 matched controls) from a community physical examination center in Suzhou city of Jiangsu Province, China.

    • This project was approved by the Ethics Committee of Nanjing Medical University. Written informed consent was obtained from each individual. Ethical guidelines were followed throughout the whole study period.

    • We determined the concentrations of 20 metals in plasma in the following steps. In brief, the frozen plasma samples were stored in a refrigerator at 5 ℃ 3 h before sample preparation and completely thawed at room temperature immediately before the experiment, followed by homogenizing on a vortex mixer. A 200-μL plasma sample was pipetted into a 10-mL centrifuge tube (LabServ. Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) containing 200 μL of 100-μg/L interior label, and then the volume was adjusted to 4.0 mL with diluent prepared with 65% (v/v) highly purified Triton X-100 (Sigma-Aldrich), 65% nitric acid HNO3 (Merck KGaA, Germany), and purified water (Wahaha Purified Water, China). When the final homogenization was complete, we measured metal concentrations in the composite samples with an inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometer on the basis of an octupole-based collision/reaction cell (Thermo, iCAP-Q ICP-MS, USA). Furthermore, internal quality control samples with every batch were detected after standardization. The detection limits of all metal elements are demonstrated in Table 1.

      Table 1.  Detection Limits of ICP-MS for Metal Elements

      Elements Detection Limits (μg/L)
      Vanadium 0.0040
      Chromium 0.0153
      Manganese 0.0213
      Iron 0.4043
      Cobalt 0.0015
      Nickel 0.0540
      Copper 0.0329
      Zinc 0.3189
      Arsenic 0.0181
      Selenium 0.0000
      Rubidium 0.0234
      Strontium 0.0435
      Ruthenium 0.0019
      Rhodium 0.0002
      Palladium 0.0073
      Argentum 0.0054
      Cadmium 0.0023
      Cesium 0.0016
      Barium 0.0642
      Lanthanum 0.0011
    • Measurement data are expressed as mean ± SD (x±s), and data with a skewed distribution are described as median and interquartile ranges. Differences among groups were analyzed by nonparametric tests, student t-test, or one-way ANOVA. Qualitative data were described as percentages and analyzed using the chi-square (χ2) test or Fisher's exact test as indicated. Crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were determined with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) by multivariate logistic regression.

      Results were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05. We entered all data into a computerized database using the statistical analysis software Epidata 3.1. All analyses were performed using the SPSS software (Version 22.0, SPSS Inc., USA) and SAS 9.1.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

    • Table 2 shows the basic characteristics of all subjects. A total of 551 participants were analyzed in this study. There were more female subjects than male ones in each group and in the total population. Approximately 216 (39.2%) out of 551 subjects were male, whereas the remaining 335 (60.8%) were female. The age range of all subjects was 40-92, and the mean age was 66.48, 66.25, and 66.43 years for controls, newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients, and the total population, respectively. Most of our population disapproved of smoking and drinking: 84.0% of study subjects were never smokers, and 16.0% were ever smokers. The ratio of never to ever drinkers was 89.7% and 10.3%, respectively. There were no significant differences between cases and controls with respect to age, gender, BMI, and smoking status; however, cases were more likely than controls to be ever drinkers. The percentage of current drinkers in cases was significantly higher than in controls (15.6% vs. 8.9%, P < 0.05). With respect to family history, the case group was more likely to have a family history of diabetes than the controls, with a prevalence of 14.8% in cases and 4.7% in controls. However, the mean level of FPG in newly diagnosed diabetes was significantly higher than that in controls (7.55 vs. 5.67 mmol/L, P < 0.05).

      Table 2.  Descriptive Characteristics of New Diagnosed Cases of Type 2 Diabetes and Controls

      Variables All (N = 551) Cases (N = 122) Controls (N = 429) P
      Gender, n (%)
        Male 216 (39.2) 43 (35.2) 173 (40.3) 0.310a
        Female 335 (60.8) 79 (64.8) 256 (59.7)
      Age, years 66.43 ± 9.36 66.25 ± 9.46 66.48 ± 9.34 0.809b
         < 66, n (%) 234 (42.5) 55 (45.1) 179 (41.7) 0.880a
        66-70, n (%) 136 (24.7) 25 (20.5) 111 (25.9)
         > 70, n (%) 181 (32.8) 42 (34.4) 139 (32.4)
      BMI, kg/m2 24.67 ± 3.32 25.08 ± 3.74 24.55 ± 3.18 0.151b
      Smoking status, n (%)
        Never 463 (84.0) 100 (82.0) 363 (84.6) 0.481a
        Ever 88 (16.0) 22 (18.0) 66 (15.4)
      Drinking status, n (%)
        Never 494 (89.7) 103 (84.4) 391 (91.1) 0.032a
        Ever 57 (10.3) 19 (15.6) 38 (8.9)
      Family history, n (%)
        No 513 (93.1) 104 (85.2) 409 (95.3) 0.000a
        Yes 38 (6.9) 18 (14.8) 20 (4.7)
      FPG, mmol/L 6.09 ± 3.18 7.55 ± 2.14 5.67 ± 3.30 0.000b
        Note. aχ2 test for the distribution between cases and controls. bStudent t-test for mean comparison between cases and controls.
    • Table 3 shows the blood levels of 20 metal elements in our study participants. There were significant differences between cases and controls in plasma vanadium concentration: the median concentration of vanadium was 0.234 μg/L in the case group and 0.177 μg/L in the control group (P < 0.05). Similarly, blood levels of chromium, manganese, copper, zinc, and cadmium were higher in cases than those in controls (P < 0.05): the corresponding concentrations were 2.286 μg/L in cases vs. 1.898 μg/L in controls for chromium, 2.725 μg/L vs. 1.828 μg/L for manganese, 932.164 μg/L vs. 786.388 μg/L for copper, 634.382 μg/L vs. 575.205 μg/L for zinc, and 0.096 μg/L vs. 0.065 μg/L for cadmium. Participants with diabetes had significantly higher concentrations of arsenic, selenium, strontium, palladium, cesium, and barium than those in the non-diabetic group (P < 0.05): their comparative plasma levels were 0.754 μg/L in diabetes vs. 0.536 μg/L in non-diabetes for arsenic, 18.565 μg/L vs. 15.447 μg/L for selenium, 33.248 μg/L vs. 30.539 μg/L for strontium, 0.373 μg/L vs. 0.231 μg/L for palladium, 0.957 μg/L vs. 0.779 μg/L for cesium, and 8.173 μg/L vs. 4.802 μg/L for barium. However, there was no significant difference in the blood concentrations of iron, cobalt, nickel, rubidium, ruthenium, rhodium, argentum, and lanthanum between cases and controls with respect to the median values.

      Table 3.  Metal Concentrations in New Diagnosed Diabetes and Controls

      Variables All Cases Controls Pa
      Median
      (μg/L)
      Quartile Range
      (μg/L)
      Median
      (μg/L)
      Quartile Range
      (μg/L)
      Median
      (μg/L)
      Quartile Range
      (μg/L)
      Vanadium 0.191 0.138 0.234 0.180 0.177 0.125 0.000
      Chromium 1.952 1.114 2.286 1.389 1.898 1.048 0.000
      Manganese 1.954 1.242 2.725 1.930 1.828 0.944 0.000
      Iron 1117.162 451.861 1174.648 459.733 1104.439 442.876 0.139
      Cobalt 0.294 0.124 0.292 0.132 0.297 0.122 0.563
      Nickel 6.478 3.640 5.968 3.903 6.551 3.570 0.191
      Copper 815.755 261.226 932.164 268.340 786.388 244.672 0.000
      Zinc 590.108 196.973 634.382 191.369 575.205 201.633 0.000
      Arsenic 0.615 0.784 0.754 0.584 0.536 0.790 0.002
      Selenium 16.390 11.875 18.565 9.279 15.447 12.538 0.000
      Rubidium 277.661 82.564 274.967 66.249 278.579 93.801 0.501
      Strontium 31.456 12.724 33.248 14.153 30.539 11.489 0.000
      Ruthenium 0.043 0.061 0.046 0.069 0.042 0.057 0.398
      Rhodium 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.545
      Palladium 0.287 0.716 0.373 0.609 0.231 0.693 0.002
      Argentum 0.411 0.462 0.503 0.398 0.390 0.497 0.730
      Cadmium 0.071 0.065 0.096 0.102 0.065 0.061 0.000
      Cesium 0.821 0.404 0.957 0.375 0.779 0.382 0.000
      Barium 5.115 4.633 8.173 13.656 4.802 3.202 0.000
      Lanthanum 0.035 0.034 0.038 0.032 0.035 0.036 0.333
        Note. aNonparametric test for the comparison of metal levels in abnormal distribution.
    • We divided the subjects' plasma metal concentrations into tertiles to analyze the association between diabetes prevalence and metal content. Serum iron, cobalt, nickel, rubidium, ruthenium, rhodium, argentum, and lanthanum were not associated with diabetes risk (Table 4). However, for the other metals, we observed statistically significant correlations with increased diabetes risk. After adjusting for confounders, the adjusted OR values and 95% CI of diabetes of the third tertiles (the highest group) comparing minimum tertiles (the lowest group) for vanadium, chromium, manganese, copper, zinc, arsenic, selenium, strontium, palladium, cadmium, cesium, and barium were 3.589 (2.040-6.314), 2.219 (1.319-3.733), 7.880 (4.169-14.893), 6.862 (3.644-12.920), 2.261 (1.285-3.979), 2.204 (1.244-3.905), 6.138 (3.012-12.509), 2.151 (1.273-3.636), 2.236 (1.266-3.952), 2.511 (1.486-4.245), 3.908 (2.223-6.869), and 6.184 (3.448-11.093), respectively, and the second tertiles (the middle group) comparing minimum tertiles for vanadium, manganese, copper, zinc, arsenic, selenium, palladium, and cesium were 2.100 (1.178-3.744), 2.528 (1.286-4.969), 2.796 (1.456-5.368), 1.964 (1.132-3.407), 3.436 (1.956-6.037), 8.134 (4.088-16.182), 2.409 (1.370-4.237), and 1.847 (1.015-3.361), respectively. Furthermore, the adjusted OR increased with increasing concentration of vanadium, manganese, copper, zinc, and cesium per tertile (P < 0.05).

      Table 4.  Comparisons of Diabetes risk According to the Three Tertiles of Plasma Metals

      Variables Q1 (lowest)
      (μg/L)
      Q2 (middle)
      (μg/L)
      Q3 (highest)
      (μg/L)
      Pb
      Vanadium < 0.151 0.151- 0.235
        Case: N (%) 22 (18.03) 40 (32.79) 60 (49.18) 0.000
        Control: N (%) 162 (37.76) 143 (33.33) 124 (28.91)
        All (%) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22) 184 (33.39)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 2.100 (1.178-3.744) 3.589 (2.040-6.314)
      Chromium < 1.623 1.623-2.321 > 2.321
        Case: N (%) 30 (24.59) 33 (27.05) 59 (48.36) 0.000
        Control: N (%) 152 (35.43) 151 (35.20) 126 (29.37)
        All (%) 182 (33.03) 184 (33.39) 185 (33.58)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.066 (0.605-1.878) 2.219 (1.319-3.733)
      Manganese < 1.671 1.671-2.416 > 2.416
        Case: N (%) 14 (11.48) 33 (27.05) 75 (61.47) 0.000
        Control: N (%) 169 (39.39) 152 (35.43) 108 (25.18)
        All (%) 183 (33.21) 185 (33.58) 183 (33.21)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 2.528 (1.286-4.969) 7.880 (4.169-14.893)
      Iron < 988.245 988.245-1293.406 > 1293.406
        Case: N (%) 34 (27.87) 45 (36.89) 43 (35.24) 0.246
        Control: N (%) 150 (34.97) 139 (32.40) 140 (32.63)
        All (%) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.418 (0.847-2.373) 1.591(0.900-2.814)
      Cobalt < 0.259 0.259-0.340 > 0.340
        Case: N (%) 45 (36.89) 38 (31.15) 39 (31.96) 0.520
        Control: N (%) 140 (32.63) 147 (34.27) 142 (33.10)
        All (%) 185 (33.58) 185 (33.58) 181 (32.84)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 0.820 (0.495-1.357) 0.822 (0.496-1.364)
      Nickel < 5.365 5.365-7.713 > 7.713
        Case: N (%) 53 (43.44) 30 (24.59) 39 (31.97) 0.074
        Control: N (%) 130 (30.30) 154 (35.90) 145 (33.80)
        All (%) 183 (33.22) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 0.416 (0.245-0.706) 0.637 (0.383-1.060)
      Copper < 729.661 729.661-901.400 > 901.400
        Case: N (%) 15 (12.30) 37 (30.32) 70 (57.38) 0.000
        Control: N (%) 168 (39.16) 147 (34.27) 114 (26.57)
        All (%) 183 (33.22) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 2.796 (1.456-5.368) 6.862 (3.644-12.920)
      Zinc < 529.777 529.777-649.232 > 649.232
        Case: N (%) 27 (22.13) 43 (35.25) 52 (42.62) 0.002
        Control: N (%) 156 (36.36) 141 (32.87) 132 (30.77)
        All (%) 183 (33.22) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.964 (1.132-3.407) 2.261 (1.285-3.979)
      Arsenic < 0.389 0.389-0.915 > 0.915
        Case: N (%) 22 (18.03) 57 (46.72) 43 (35.25) 0.008
        Control: N (%) 162 (37.76) 127 (29.60) 140 (32.64)
        All (%) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 3.436 (1.956-6.037) 2.204 (1.244-3.905)
      Selenium < 12.774 12.774-19.825 > 19.825
        Case: N (%) 13 (10.66) 60 (49.18) 49 (40.16) 0.000
        Control: N (%) 171 (39.86) 124 (28.90) 134 (31.24)
        All (%) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 8.134 (4.088-16.182) 6.138 (3.012-12.509)
      Rubidium < 251.164 251.164-300.669 > 300.669
        Case: N (%) 32 (26.23) 54 (44.26) 36 (29.51) 0.615
        Control: N (%) 152 (35.43) 129 (30.07) 148 (34.50)
        All (%) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22) 184 (33.39)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 2.286 (1.354-3.860) 1.057 (0.578-1.933)
      Strontium < 28.225 28.225-36.059 > 36.059
        Case: N (%) 28 (22.95) 40 (32.79) 54 (44.26) 0.001
        Control: N (%) 156 (36.36) 144 (33.57) 129 (30.07)
        All (%) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.505 (0.866-2.616) 2.151 (1.273-3.636)
      Ruthenium < 0.027 0.027-0.065 > 0.065
        Case: N (%) 34 (27.87) 45 (36.89) 43 (35.24) 0.246
        Control: N (%) 150 (34.97) 139 (32.40) 140 (32.63)
        All (%) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.349 (0.803-2.267) 1.277 (0.749-2.179)
      Rhodium < 0.000 0.000-0.003 > 0.003
        Case: N (%) 64 (52.46) 37 (30.33) 21 (17.21) 0.286
        Control: N (%) 227 (52.91) 87 (20.28) 115 (26.81)
        All (%) 291 (52.81) 124 (22.50) 136 (24.69)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.568 (0.962-2.557) 0.686 (0.394-1.194)
      Palladium < 0.100 0.100-0.493 > 0.493
        Case: N (%) 23 (18.85) 53 (43.44) 46 (37.71) 0.004
        Control: N (%) 160 (37.30) 131 (30.54) 138 (32.16)
        All (%) 183 (33.22) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 2.409 (1.370-4.237) 2.236 (1.266-3.952)
      Argentum < 0.300 0.300-0.636 > 0.636
        Case: N (%) 36 (29.51) 48 (39.34) 38 (31.15) 0.801
        Control: N (%) 147 (34.27) 137 (31.93) 145 (33.80)
        All (%) 183 (33.21) 185 (33.58) 183 (33.21)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.458 (0.870-2.442) 0.929 (0.544-1.587)
      Cadmium < 0.051 0.051-0.096 > 0.096
        Case: N (%) 28 (22.95) 33 (27.05) 61 (50.00) 0.000
        Control: N (%) 153 (35.66) 152 (35.43) 124 (28.91)
        All (%) 181 (32.84) 185 (33.58) 185 (33.58)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.086 (0.617-1.912) 2.511 (1.486-4.245)
      Cesium < 0.700 0.700-0.951 > 0.951
        Case: N (%) 21 (17.21) 37 (30.33) 64 (52.46) 0.000
        Control: N (%) 163 (38.00) 147 (34.27) 119 (27.73)
        All (%) 184 (33.39) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.847 (1.015-3.361) 3.908 (2.223-6.869)
      Barium < 4.134 4.134-6.786 > 6.786
        Case: N (%) 18 (14.75) 28 (22.95) 76 (62.30) 0.000
        Control: N (%) 165 (38.46) 157 (36.60) 107 (24.94)
        All (%) 183 (33.21) 185 (33.58) 183 (33.21)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.583 (0.823-3.046) 6.184 (3.448-11.093)
      Lanthanum < 0.026 0.026-0.049 > 0.049
        Case: N (%) 36 (29.50) 43 (35.25) 43 (35.25) 0.379
        Control: N (%) 148 (34.50) 140 (32.63) 141 (32.87)
        All (%) 184 (33.39) 183 (33.22) 184 (33.39)
        Adjusted OR (95% CIs)a 1.000 1.236 (0.741-2.062) 1.202 (0.712-2.029)
        Note. aAdjusted for age, gender, BMI, family history, smoking and drinking status in the logistic regression model. bχ2 test for the distribution of different metal levels.
    • The present study suggests that newly diagnosed diabetes patients were more likely to be drinkers and to have higher average blood concentrations of some metals (vanadium, chromium, manganese, copper, zinc, arsenic, selenium, strontium, palladium, cadmium, cesium, and barium) than control subjects without type 2 diabetes. This indicates that drinking may induce pancreatic β-cell dysfunction or an inability to produce insulin, which plays an important role in decreasing blood glucose. In previous studies, some metals (arsenic, cadmium, manganese, zinc, and mercury) are thought to have estrogenic activity and are consequently classified as EDCs (environmental endocrine disruptors)[15-18]. They can simulate some features of insulin secreted from pancreatic β-cells, disturbing normal insulin regulatory function with blood glucose and causing pathoglycemia or even more serious illness.

      The plasma concentration results of heavy metals in this study are in partial agreement with those of a previous population-based study exploring the association of urinary metal profiles with diabetes risk[19-21]. However, it must be kept in mind that, in our research, we decided a priori to use metals in the blood rather than in the urine as the main outcome measure of metal burden, because there is diurnal variability in metal excretion, which is usually affected by urinary flow rate[22]. Therefore, the variability of metal levels in urine is substantial, despite their long half-lives. Taking this into account, urinary metals are not good biomarkers for many outcomes, because the excretion of metals varies far more due to other factors than to metal toxicity itself. Fortunately, blood metal levels were used in our study as a valid biomarker, which is not affected by the above factors, because metal levels in blood are steady unless individuals change their diet or living habits dramatically.

      We did not find significant differences in palsma nickel concentration between the third and first tertiles, but the nickel level in the middle tertile was the protective factor against diabetes in the present study. Although it has been reported that the whole-body burden of nickel might be changed in diabetes, the results were inconsistent. Kazi et al.[23] showed no difference in blood levels of nickel between patients with diabetes and controls, whereas some other findings reported a higher concentration of plasma nickel in diabetics[24-28]. However, Yarat et al.[29] found a lower serum nickel concentration in patients with diabetes. A significant association between plasma arsenic and diabetes has been found in our study, which was in line with previous studies[30-33]. Some researchers with human and animal experimental evidence suggested that arsenic may impair pancreatic β-cells in the process of insulin synthesis and secretion, decreasing glucose uptake[34-37]. Skalnaya et al.[38] have evaluated serum levels of copper, zinc, and iron in diabetes patients. Our results also showed that elevated plasma copper and zinc levels were significantly correlated with increased diabetes risk. Unfortunately, we did not find iron to be associated with diabetes risk among subjects, which may suggest that current intake levels of iron may not affect the glucose metabolism. Our results showed that elevated plasma selenium levels were significantly correlated with increased diabetes risk; however, there was conflicting evidence linking selenium to glucose metabolism. Askari[39] suggest that blood Selenium concentration is significantly lower in patients with hyperglycemia than in those with euglycemia. In agreement with their results, high selenium status was associated with reduced diabetes prevalence in several prospective studies[40-42]. However, high serum and plasma selenium concentrations were associated with an increased prevalence of diabetes in other studies[43-46], and a non-significant association has also been found[47-49]. Our results also suggested that plasma cadmium was related to diabetes, which was in accordance with previous studies indicating that cadmium could cause diabetes through disruption of pancreatic β-cells and the presence of oxidative stress[50-52].

      The present study has a number of strengths and limitations. The case group consists of newly diagnosed diabetes, and the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes was based on the professional medical opinions of endocrinologists from the physical examination center. Moreover, we focus on the metal concentrations in plasma and not in urine, a result that is easily affected by urinary flow rate. Regarding limitations, it should firstly be noted that this was a cross-sectional study, so we do not know whether diabetes results from the presence of these metals in the body or vice versa, because the cross-sectional design is a limitation regarding causality. Furthermore, the limited size of the final population (122 newly diagnosed cases of type 2 diabetes and 429 matched controls) is also a limitation. Finally, we cannot exclude the possibility of a false-positive result, because our results were obtained only as the plasma output of these metals; thus, the positive findings regarding metal levels and diabetes may have been due to chance. Therefore, the associations found in this study require further investigation in future studies.

      Our results emphasized the need to monitor environmental metal levels in order to reduce metal exposure to humans. Further research is urgently needed to determine the role of metals in the development of diabetes.

    • We thank all subjects who participated in this study and the Suzhou Biobank.

    • The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

参考文献 (52)

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回