ABSTRACT
Introduction: Metabolic acidosis affects bone health. It remains unclear whether drinking natural mineral water is better for maintaining bone health in the youth with metabolic acidosis. Materials and Methods: Sixty young female rats (3-weeks-old) were randomly divided into three groups and drank purified water (PW, as control), bicarbonate-rich natural mineral water (Bic-NMW), or sulfate-rich natural mineral water (Sul-NMW), which, respectively, contained calcium (0.17, 155, and 175 mg/L), bicarbonate (0.1360, and 139 mg/L) and sulfate (0, 35.6, and 532 mg/L), for 16 weeks. In the last 3 weeks, metabolic acidosis was induced in 10 rats per group by adding NH4Cl (0.28 mM) to drinking water. The rats' blood, urine, and femur were collected for assessing acid-base status, calcium metabolism, bone microstructure, and strength. The difference between the three groups was determined using one-way ANOVA followed by the Student-Newman-Keuls test or Dunnett's T3 test. Results: Compared with the PW rats, the Bic-NMW rats and the Sul-NMW rats had less urine net acid excretion (-1.51, 0.20 vs. 10.77, EQ/L), higher bone mineral density (442.50, 407.49 vs. 373.28, mg/mm3), growth cartilage width (271.83, 283.83 vs. 233.27, µm) and cortical trabecular area (9.33, 9.55 vs. 5.05, mm2), and smaller cortical marrow cavity area (5.40, 5.49 vs. 7.27, mm2) in the femur (P < 0.05). Besides, the Bic-NMW rats had less serum calcium (2.53 vs. 2.68, mmol/L) and C-terminal cross-linked telopeptide of type-I collagen (1.35 vs. 1.93, ng/mL), and higher serum calcitonin (0.61 vs. 0.39, µg/L), femoral trabecular thickness (0.10 vs. 0.09, µm), bone volume/total volume (0.42 vs. 0.34, %), cortical bone area (15.91 vs. 12.80, mm2), and ultimate stress (35.12 vs. 29.32, MPa) (P < 0.05). The Sul-NMW rats had more osteoclasts (22.50 vs. 11.54, cells/field) (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Drinking natural mineral water, especially bicarbonate-rich natural mineral water, is effective in improving bone health in young rats with metabolic acidosis. These benefits include maintaining bone mineral density, and improving bone microstructure and biomechanical properties via moderating metabolic acidosis.
ABSTRACT
Microcystins have been reported to be carcinogenic by animal and cell experimentation, but there are no data on the linkage between serum microcystins and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in humans. We conducted a clinical case-control study to investigate the association between serum microcystins and HCC risk after controlling several known risk factors, such as hepatitis B virus, alcohol, and aflatoxin. From December 2013 to May 2016, 214 patients newly diagnosed with HCC along with 214 controls (frequency-matched by age and sex) were recruited from three hospitals in Chongqing, southwest China. Basic information on lifestyle and history of disease was obtained by questionnaire. Blood samples were collected and analyzed for serum microcystin-LR (MC-LR) and aflatoxin-albumin adduct by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and for hepatitis B surface antigen status by chemiluminescence assay. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the independent effects of MC-LR and its joint effects with other factors on HCC risk. The adjusted odds ratio for HCC risk by serum MC-LR was 2.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-5.5) in all patients. Notably, a clear relationship between increased MC-LR level (Q2, Q3, and Q4) and HCC risk was observed with elevated adjusted odds ratios (1.3, 2.6, and 4.0, respectively). Positive interactions with the additive model were investigated between MC-LR and hepatitis B virus infection (synergism index = 3.0; 95% CI, 2.0-4.5) and between MC-LR and alcohol (synergism index = 4.0; 95% CI, 1.7-9.5), while a negative interaction was found between MC-LR and aflatoxin (synergism index = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7). Additionally, serum MC-LR was significantly associated with tumor differentiation (r = -0.228, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We provide evidence that serum MC-LR was an independent risk factor for HCC in humans, with an obvious positive interaction with hepatitis B virus and alcohol but a negative interaction with aflatoxin. (Hepatology 2017;66:1519-1528).
