healthy control plasma zinc

Discuss herbal therapies, vitamins and minerals, bee stings, etc. here
Post Reply
User avatar
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
Posts: 12070
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:00 pm

healthy control plasma zinc

Post by jimmylegs » Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:08 pm

okay time to dig in. zinc around here is reported in µmol/L. i am used to seeing a lower reference range for plasma zinc compared to my comfort zone measure, which is serum zinc. that means i'm used to considering the top end of the range for serum zinc, ie 18.5 umol/l, to be my healthy control target (although that number is getting harder to find except where reported in an academic publication generated locally)
if memory serves i believe 15 or less is the top end for plasma zinc, locally at least.
into the abyss:
  • The impact of plasma zinc status on the severity of prostate cancer disease (2019)
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6495034/

    The PCa patients had markedly reduced plasma zinc status compared to controls (cases: 9.42±3.02 µmol/L versus controls: 15.23±4.47 µmol/L; p<0.001). Low zinc status was more pronounced within the severe grade and advanced PCa disease subgroups (p<0.001).
oh yep the newly familiar numbers. so patients are low normal, controls high normal. some good unpacking of findings by others in the discussion. eg
  • A previous study reported in 2014 from South-eastern Nigeria had also observed similarly reduced plasma zinc in men with prostate cancer compared to apparently healthy controls (cases: 22.5±6.4 µmol/L versus controls: 25.9±9.1 µmol/L; p<0.05) ...
apparently healthy controls. that's the kicker, isn't it. high levels overall, wonder what gives there. as usual, copper crosses my mind.
  • Białkowska et al. [10] had recently reported a higher zinc status among Polish PCa patients compared to controls. While Eken et al. [11] found no difference in zinc status of Turkish PCa patients compared to controls. These reports [8,9] are at variance to our finding and could be related to environmental, dietary, genetic or study methodological differences.
and the copper? might the ratios have been telling? a question for another time. back into the zinc data mines...
take control of your own health
pursue optimal self care at least as actively as a diagnosis
ask for referrals to preventive health care specialists eg dietitians
don't let suboptimal self care muddy any underlying diagnostic picture!

User avatar
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
Posts: 12070
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:00 pm

Re: healthy control plasma zinc

Post by jimmylegs » Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:20 pm

  • Zinc and vitamin A deficiency in a cohort of children with autism spectrum disorder (2019)
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... /cch.12655

    Seventy‐four of the 150 children with ASD who were invited and 72 controls underwent blood sampling. Mean zinc and vitamin A levels were normal in both groups. There were significantly more males in the ASD group (88% versus 56%, p value < 0.001). The mean (SD) zinc level was not different between the groups (ASD 11.7 [1.7] versus control 11.6 [2.1] μmol/L, p value = 0.86).
well both means look low to my eye, but i could be wrong. we'll see what the rest of the lit has to offer.
take control of your own health
pursue optimal self care at least as actively as a diagnosis
ask for referrals to preventive health care specialists eg dietitians
don't let suboptimal self care muddy any underlying diagnostic picture!

User avatar
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
Posts: 12070
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:00 pm

Re: healthy control plasma zinc

Post by jimmylegs » Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:28 pm

well i did ask for plasma but got this in the results anyway. still interesting, if a bit off topic:
  • Evaluation of Zinc, Copper and Cu/Zn ratio in sera of women with breast cancer in Kirkuk City (2019)
    https://www.iasj.net/iasj?func=article&aId=162956

    serum zinc level of the total BC group (77.65 ± 8.49 µg/dl)
    and in its subgroups (on chemotherapy, pre- and post-operation) (78.85 ± 5.26; 72.8 ± 10.08; 81.3 ± 7.37 µg/dl) respectively
    and in benign breast tumor (82.55 ± 4.9 µg/dl),
    compared to that of healthy control (HC) group (93.55 ± 12.88 µg/dl ).
    ...
    highly significant (P<0.01) elevation of mean serum copper concentration was found in total BC (150.92 ± 14.78 µg/dl)
    and in (Chemotherapy, Pre & Post-operation ) breast cancer subgroups (148.65 ± 13.16, 154.9 ± 15.16, 149.2 ± 15.39 µg/dl) respectively,
    and in BBT (148.45±16.57 µg/dl)
    compared to HC (122.5 ± 13.33 µg/dl).
really looking forward to my zinc and copper results. and i won't be happy with any 1.3 ratio as seen in the above study's HC group.. i aim for 0.7-1.0.
take control of your own health
pursue optimal self care at least as actively as a diagnosis
ask for referrals to preventive health care specialists eg dietitians
don't let suboptimal self care muddy any underlying diagnostic picture!

User avatar
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
Posts: 12070
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:00 pm

Re: healthy control plasma zinc

Post by jimmylegs » Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:32 am

  • Dietary Zinc Intake and Plasma Zinc Concentrations in Children with Short Stature and Failure to Thrive (2016)
    https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/447648

    The plasma zinc concentration did not differ between the cases and controls (97.4 vs. 98.2 μg/dl, p = 0.882). More cases had mild-to-moderate zinc deficiency when compared to controls with 10.3 vs. 3.6%, p = 0.095.
ok need full text access to this one. that more pronounced difference re deficiency made me wonder about outliers affecting the mean in the case data set. the authors have defined severe deficiency as <50 (0 cases, 0 controls), mild to moderate as 51-64 (8 cases, 3 controls) and sufficient as at least 65 (70 cases, 80 controls). i'll be very interested to learn more about where optimal might lie between that 65 lower cutoff for sufficiency, and excess.

units conversions pending. time for some chores :)

ok i did the math and 98.2 is 15 umol/l, 97.4 is 14.9 umol/l. so those both sound higher end.
interestingly, the copper zinc ratios look suspect. the cases' cu zn ratio is around 0.6 and the controls are close to 0.7 which as i understand it is as low as you'd want to go with a copper zinc ratio (although i do not know how those target ranges might vary for different demographics)
take control of your own health
pursue optimal self care at least as actively as a diagnosis
ask for referrals to preventive health care specialists eg dietitians
don't let suboptimal self care muddy any underlying diagnostic picture!

User avatar
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
Posts: 12070
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:00 pm

Re: healthy control plasma zinc

Post by jimmylegs » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:42 am

Copper and Zinc Concentration in the Plasma of Leukaemic Children (1973)

"TABLE 11. Copper and zinc concentrations in plasma from normal and leukaemic children
Group....................................n...........Mean concentration (ug/100 ml)+/-Standard Deviation
........................................................cu.......................zn
I. Normal children....................13...........126.8+/-21.2..........123.2+/-33.2
2. Leukaemics pre-treatment......14...........256.8+/-73.8............79.3+/-39.1
3. Leukaemics in remission.........42...........105.9+/-31.2..........108.5+/-37.7"

so i gather that's 18.8 umol/l mean plasma zinc in the normal children.. sounds like a healthy serum zinc number which makes me wonder about assay changes/developments over time. something to look into another time.

still, the patients would convert to 12.1 umol/l plasma zinc ie mid normal at best even by current standards.

i will be very interested to see my own copper and zinc levels when they come in :)
take control of your own health
pursue optimal self care at least as actively as a diagnosis
ask for referrals to preventive health care specialists eg dietitians
don't let suboptimal self care muddy any underlying diagnostic picture!

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post