Why the study?
Are levels of SAM, 5-MTHF, and homocysteine associated with endothelial function in elderly people?
Are levels of SAM, 5-MTHF, and homocysteine associated with endothelial function in elderly people?
In elderly individuals, SAM and 5-MTHF levels are more strongly associated with endothelial and smooth muscle cell function than homocysteine.
Should not yet inform clinical vascular risk assessment in elderly; leaves open whether SAM or 5-MTHF causally affect endothelial function.
OBJECTIVE: To explore to what extent homocysteine, S-adenosylmethionine (SAM), S-adenosylhomocysteine, total folate, 5-methyltetrahydrofolate (5-MTHF), vitamin B12, and vitamin B6 are associated with endothelium-dependent, flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD), and whether these associations are stronger in individuals with diabetes or other cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this population-based study of 608 elderly people, FMD and endothelium-independent nitroglycerin-mediated dilation (NMD) were ultrasonically estimated from the brachial artery (absolute change in diameter [mum]). High SAM and low 5-MTHF were significantly associated with high and low FMD, respectively (linear regression coefficient, [95% confidence interval]): 48.57 microm (21.16; 75.98) and -32.15 microm (-59.09; -5.20), but high homocysteine was not (-15.11 microm (-42.99; 12.78). High SAM and low 5-MTHF were also significantly associated with high and low NMD, respectively. NMD explained the association of 5-MTHF with FMD but not of SAM. No interactions were observed for diabetes or cardiovascular risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: In this elderly population, both SAM and 5-MTHF are associated with endothelial and smooth muscle cell function. The effect of homocysteine on endothelial function is relatively small compared with SAM and 5-MTHF. The relative impact of SAM, 5-MTHF, and homocysteine, and the mechanisms through which these moieties may affect endothelial and smooth muscle cell function need clarification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spijkerman et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: