Open Access

Oxidative DNA damage in diabetic and mild gestational hyperglycemic pregnant women

  • Rafael Bottaro Gelaleti1,
  • Débora Cristina Damasceno1,
  • Paula Helena Ortiz Lima2,
  • Daisy Maria Favero Salvadori1,
  • Iracema de Mattos Paranhos Calderon1,
  • José Carlos Peraçoli1 and
  • Marilza Vieira Cunha Rudge1, 3Email author
Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome20157:1

https://doi.org/10.1186/1758-5996-7-1

Received: 23 September 2014

Accepted: 20 December 2014

Published: 15 January 2015

Abstract

Background

Pregnant women with mild gestational hyperglycemia present high risk for hypertension, obesity and hyperglycemia, and appeared to reproduce the model of metabolic syndrome in pregnancy, with hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance. Our clinical studies showed that mild gestational hyperglycemia or gestational diabetes are related to similar adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Hyperglycemia and other factors associated with diabetes generate reactive oxygen species that increase DNA damage levels. The aim of this study was to evaluate oxidative DNA damage in lymphocytes of pregnant women with diabetes or mild gestational hyperglycemia.

Methods

The study included 111 pregnant women distributed into three groups based on oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and glycemic profiles (GP), as follows: Normal OGTT and GP (control group); Normal OGTT and abnormal GP (mild gestational hyperglycemia group); Abnormal OGTT and GP (diabetic group). Maternal blood samples (5–10 mL) were collected and processed for determination of oxidative DNA damage by the comet assay, using Fpg and Endo III enzymes. Urine samples were also collected for determination of 8-OHdG concentrations by ELISA.

Results

Subjects in the diabetes group presented increased amount of oxidized purines, while mild gestational hyperglycemia women presented with increased oxidized pyrimidines, compared to the control group.

Conclusion

Gestational, overt diabetes and mild gestational hyperglycemia, were all related to increased oxidative DNA damage. Diabetic pregnant women showed increased level of oxidative DNA damage, perhaps mainly due to hyperglycemia. On the other hand, oxidative DNA damage detected in women with mild gestational hyperglycemia might be associated with repercussions from obesity, hypertension and/or insulin resistance. Interestingly, the type of DNA base affected seemed to be dependent on the glycemic profile or oxidative stress.

Keywords

Diabetes Pregnancy Mild gestational hyperglycemia Genotoxicity Oxidative DNA damage

Introduction

The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study has demonstrated significant perinatal risks at levels of maternal hyperglycemia below values that are diagnostic for diabetes [1]. Furthermore, this study has confirmed our previous findings showing that glycemia lower than GDM (Gestational Diabetes mellitus) is also related to adverse perinatal outcome [2]. The new criteria for diagnosis of GDM identified a group of women that were previously classified as normal according to the 4th International Workshop Conference criteria [3]. This group has metabolic characteristics and pregnancy outcomes resembling women who would have been considered to have GDM by previous criteria.

Since 1990, Rudge et al.[4] have combined two parallel diagnostic tests, 100 g Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) and Glycemic Profile (GP), to characterize the mild gestational hyperglycemia (MGH) pregnant group, women with positive screening for GDM, negative diagnosis for GDM but with hyperglycemia detected in the GP. In diurnal GP the fasting plasma glucose, 1–h over a 2-h period post-ingestion of general diet are collected. The MGH group represented 13.8% of positive screened pregnant women for GDM and, added to 7.0% of pregnancies complicated by diabetes, increase the occurrence of hyperglycemic disorders in pregnancy to about 20% [5]. These patients were at high risk for hypertension, obesity and hyperglycemia, and appeared to reproduce the model of metabolic syndrome (MS) in pregnancy, with hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance, which continued six weeks postpartum [6]. After 10 to 12 years of the index-pregnancy, type 2 diabetes was confirmed in 16.7% of women with MGH during pregnancy [7]. Exploratory analyses with newborn outcomes indicated 53.8% with macrosomia, a similar proportion (51.9%) to that described for overt diabetes and GDM [8]; a high perinatal mortality rate (41%) was also similar to that observed in diabetic women and was10 times greater than that of normal pregnant women [9]. These newborns may also exhibit hypoglycemic crises, hyperbilirubinemia and a high incidence of prematurity and congenital anomalies [2]. Therefore, despite being identified in the literature as low-risk, MGH in pregnancy is associated with adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes, previously classifiable as normal according to the 4th International Workshop Conference criteria. Furthermore, MGH patients represent a significant public health problem and must be reclassified as abnormal according to maternal and perinatal findings [9]. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the underlying mechanisms involved in MGH in order to detect If MGH and GDM are the same disease in different stages or are different pathologies with similar maternal and perinatal results. This is important since the stimuli to detect hyperglycemia and MGH are different. In GDM hyperglycemic levels are detected after ingestion of 75 g of glucose and in MGH hyperglycemia is detected after ingestion of a general diet.

Type 2 diabetes is the most common endocrine disorder affecting more than 5% of the population in western countries [10]. The pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes is characterized by both decreased peripheral insulin action and impaired pancreatic β-cell function [11, 12]. In the majority of the prediabetic population, the earliest abnormality is insulin resistance that precedes the development of glucose intolerance [13]. Initially, the pancreas attempts to compensate for insulin resistance through increased insulin secretion. When the pancreas is unable to maintain a sufficient hyperinsulinemic response, frank diabetes ensues as a consequence of progressive loss of β-cell function. Patients with type 2 diabetes are also characterized by reduced β-cell mass as compared with weight-matched non-diabetic subjects [14].

Animal models have confirmed the human epidemiologic findings and elucidated potential programming mechanisms of MGH, that include altered organ development, cellular signaling responses, and epigenetic modifications. Using an animal model, we have shown that rats with mild (glycemia from 120 to 300 mg/dL) or severe (glycemia > 300 mg/dL) diabetes and their newborns exhibited increased oxidative DNA damage detected by the comet assay [15]. Increased levels of DNA damage have been previously observed in leukocytes of type1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes patients [1618]. Dinçer et al.[17] have confirmed increased DNA damage and sensitive FAP glycosylase restriction sites in type 1 diabetes, and Pitozzi et al.[18] have detected increased oxidative DNA damage in polymorphonuclear leukocytes from type 2 diabetes. Other clinical and experimental investigations have also shown the presence of DNA oxidative damage in diabetic patients [1921]. Diabetes and hyperglycemia can be sources of DNA damage via the oxidation of DNA bases and sugar-phosphate binding sites [22].

Therefore, since our clinical studies showed that GDM or MGH are related to similar adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes, and the animal models demonstrated increase oxidative DNA damage in moderate and severe diabetic rats, we hypothesized that even though not diagnosed with diabetes, MGH pregnant women might have increased levels of this genotoxic event. If this hypothesis is correct, overt diabetes, GDM or MGH can each contribute to DNA damage and represent different stages of the same pathology. The aim of the present study was to evaluate oxidative DNA damage in lymphocytes from pregnant women with a wide range of glucose tolerance. Using different restriction enzymes, this manuscript demonstrated different answer according to glycemic variation and others factors associated to diabetes in pregnant women with diabetes or mild gestational hyperglycemia.

Research design and methods

After approval by the Research Ethics Committee of Botucatu Medical School number (OF 545/2004) the present investigation was conducted at Perinatal Diabetic Research Center - Botucatu Medical School, UNESP, Brazil. This study included 111 pregnant women. The pregnant women were assigned to participate if they presented with a fasting glycemia level ≥90 mg/dL and/or risk factors for developing gestational Diabetes mellitus between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. A 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and a glycemic profile were performed; the cutoff values for the OGTT were those proposed by Carpenter & Coustan (fasting ≥95 mg/dL; 1 h ≥ 180 mg/dL; 2 h ≥ 155 mg/dL;) and for the glycemic profile, those proposed by Gillmer et al. (fasting ≥ 90 mg/dL and/or postprandial ≥ 130 mg/dL) (Additional file 1 (flowchart)). After these procedures the patients were classified into three groups:

Normal OGTT and glycemic profile (normoglycemic or control group) n = 41

Normal OGTT and abnormal glycemic profile (mild hyperglycemic group-MGH) n = 24

Abnormal OGTT and glycemic profile (diabetic group) n = 46. (Rudge et al.[4]).

At screening, maternal characteristics such as age, body mass index (BMI), diabetes and hypertension were recorded. Hypertension was considered when a systolic blood pressure >140 mmHg and/or a diastolic blood pressure > 90 mmHg, on at least two occasions at least six hours apart, was detected [13]. For maternal hyperglycemia regulation, pregnant MGH and GDM women were treated with diet, physical exercise, and insulin therapy (if necessary) after the diagnosis, and women with type 2 diabetes were treated since the beginning of pregnancy [23, 24].

Inclusion criteria were defined: (a) classified in the study groups, (b) gestational age of entry into treatment’s protocol of 30 weeks for MGH and 20 weeks pregnant for type 2 DM (c) prenatal care and birth on the service, (d) consent form signature. Exclusion criteria were multiple pregnancies, fetal malformations, birth before 34 weeks and type 1 diabetes.

The glycemic mean was calculated by the arithmetic mean of plasma glucose measured in all GP performed at diagnosis (ND group) and the control of treatment (MGH and diabetic groups). Plasma glucose was measured by the glucose oxidase method (Glucose - Analyzer II Beckman®, Fullerton, California, USA) and the body mass index (BMI) was calculated by body weight divided by the square of height.

From 34 weeks of gestation and before the onset of labor, maternal blood samples (5 to 10 mL) and urine samples were collected. The blood samples were collected in Vacutainer tubes with EDTA and the urine samples in collector tubes. The collected blood samples were immediately processed for determination of oxidative DNA damage by the comet assay and the urine samples were stored in a freezer at -80°C for the measurement of 8-OHdG and creatinine levels.

To evaluate oxidative DNA damage, the comet assay was performed acoording to the protocol described by Collins et al.[19]. Briefly, maternal lymphocytes were isolated using a Ficoll® gradient, and 20 μl were mixed with low melting point (LMP) agarose (120 μl), placed on a precoated slide with normal melting point (NMP) agarose, and immediately covered with a coverslip. The slides were left at 4°C for 10 min to solidify the agarose. The coverslip was gently removed and the slides were immersed in an ice-cold freshly prepared lysis solution (2.5 M NaCl, 100 mM EDTA, 10 mM Tris, with 1% Triton 100-X, and 10% dimethylsulphoxide added just before use). Afterwards, the slides were washed with cold PBS (phosphate buffered saline) buffer and 1X FLARE (Fragment Length Analysis using Repair Enzymes) buffer and placed in a lined container. The enzymatic treatment was performed following the methodology described by Collins et al. [25]. The formamidopyrimidine DNA glycosylase (Fpg) and endonuclease III (Endo III) enzymes were used to detect oxidative damage in purine and pyrimidine bases, respectively. After enzymatic treatment, the slides were covered with coverslips and kept at 37°C for 45 minutes. The coverslips were removed and slides placed on a horizontal electrophoresis unit filled with fresh electrophoresis alkaline buffer (300 mM NaOH and 1 mM EDTA, pH > 13). The alkali unwinding duration was 40 min. Electrophoresis was conducted at 4°C for 30 min at 25 V/cm and 300 mA. All steps were carried out under minimal illumination. The slides were neutralized in a buffer (0.4 M Tris at pH 7.5) and dipped in absolute alcohol for fixation. The dried slides were stained with ethidium bromide (20 μg/ml in distilled H2O; 50 μl/slide), covered with a coverslip and analysed in a fluorescence microscope connected to a computer-based analysis system (Comet Assay IV, Perceptive Instruments, UK) to determine the extent of DNA damage. Results were expressed as tail intensity (% DNA in the comet tail). One hundred randomly selected nucleoids (50 from each of two replicate slides) were scored per blood sample. Positive controls consisted of lymphocytes treated with H2O2 (200 μM, 30 minutes) [26].

The 8-hidroxy-2-deoxi guanosina (8-OHdG) dosage was determined by ELISA according to the manufacturer’s protocol (8-OHdG Kit _EIA, Cayman Chemical Company). The creatinine measurement was performed by spectrophotometry (Creatinine assay Kit, Cayman Chemical Company). After 8-OHdG and creatinine determination, the mass ratio was performed between the 8-OHdG concentration and creatinine levels.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by the Tukey’s multiple comparisons test, was used for the characteristic endpoints of the study population, and the ANOVA followed by Student Newman-Keuls test for 8-OHdG dosages. To analyze the significance (p < 0.05) of oxidative DNA damage, Gamma distribution was applied.

Results

Table 1 shows the characteristics (age, body mass index, glycemic mean, glycated hemoglobin and blood pressure) of the study population. Age and body mass index (BMI) did not differ among the groups. Higher glycemic means were observed in both the MGH and diabetic groups compared to the control group. The glycemic mean in women of diabetic group was higher than in subjects in the MGH group (p < 0.05). Glycated hemoglobin was higher in diabetic group compared to the control group (p < 0.05). The MGH group had a greater number of individuals with hypertension in pregnancy compared to the other study groups (p < 0.05).

Our results showed an increased level of oxidized purines (FPG) (tail intensity) in lymphocytes from women with DG, compared to women in the control group (Figure 1) and an increased level of oxidized pyrimidines (EndoIII) (tail intensity) in lymphocytes from women with MGH compared to the control group (Figure 2). Regarding the concentration of 8-OHdG in urine, it was slightly increased in pregnant women with diabetes and MGH, although no statistically significant difference was detected (p > 0.05) (Figure 3).
Table 1

Characteristics of the study population

 

Groups

Control

MGH

Diabetic

N

41

24

46

Age (years) §

29.7 ± 5.5

31.5 ± 4.2

31.3 ± 5.4

BMI (Kg/m2)§

32.7 ± 6.9

36.0 ± 7.4

35.2 ± 6.3

Glicemic Mean (mg/dL)§

81.5 ± 9.5

97.9 ± 7.5*

111.5 ± 17.6*#

HbA1C §

5.45 ± 0.53

5.74 ± 0.67

6.33 ± 0.90* #

Rate of Hypertension (N)%))||

14 (34.1)

16 (66.6.)*&

17 (35.4)

HbA1C – Glycated Hemoglobin.

Data presented as mean ± standard deviation and number of subjects (percentage).

*p < 0.05 – significant difference compared to the control group (§Tukey’s multiple comparison test and ||chi-square test).

#p < 0.05 – significant difference compared to the MGH group (Tukey’s multiple comparison test).

&p < 0.05 – significant difference compared to the diabetic group (chi-square test).

Figure 1

Oxidative DNA damage levels after treatment using enzyme formamidopirimidine glycosylase (Fpg) in the study groups. Data presented as mean ± standard error of mean. *p < 0.05 – significant difference compared to the control group (Gamma distribution).

Figure 2

Oxidative DNA damage levels after treatment using enzyme endonuclease III in the study groups. Data presented as mean ± standard error of mean. *p < 0.05 – significant difference compared to control group (Gamma distribution).

Figure 3

8-OHdG concentrations (ng/mg creatinine) in the study groups. Data presented as mean ± standard deviation of mean (Tukey’s multiple comparison test). p > 0.05 - No significant difference.

When using the restriction enzyme Endo III, women in the MGH group with hypertension had higher values of oxidative DNA damage compared to those in the MGH group without hypertension (70.15 ± 8.7 vs. 53.74 ± 17.4) (p = 0.05).

Positive controls treated with H2O2 presented levels of DNA damage (tail intensity) of 77.82 ± 5.3 (mean ± standart error of the mean).

There are no reports about the ethnic differences in the comet assay and DNA damage.

Discussion

The available literature provides insufficient information on the involvement of DNA damage in pregnant women with a wide range of glucose tolerance, diabetes and MGH. The hyperglycemia seen in type 2 diabetes is associated with increased oxidative stress and production of reactive oxygen species, both of which are factors that can induce DNA damage. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate oxidative DNA damage in lymphocytes from pregnant women with a wide range of glucose tolerance. In this report, we demonstrate increased levels of oxidized purines and pyrimidines in diabetic and MGH subjects, respectively, compared to control mothers.

Our findings in the diabetic pregnant group are consistent with those reported by Collins et al.[19], in their classical study, showing that oxidized purines specifically reflect DNA damage caused by hyperglycemia. Therefore, Fpg-sensitive sites were more closely associated with increased glycemic levels. In our translational study, similar results were found in diabetic pregnant rats [27]. To the best of our knowledge, the current data showing high level of oxidized pyrimidines in the MGH group is described for the first time. FPG sensitive-sites were not increased in these women. This MGH group presented not only with hyperglycemia but also with insulin resistance, obesity and hypertension [28], which have already been associated with increased DNA damage [2931]. High insulin resistance indices (HOMA-IR) can infer oxidative stress and DNA damage [32]. Yildiz et al.[29] and Gür et al.[31] showed that DNA damage caused by ROS occurs more commonly in hypertensive patients. The association among mild hyperglycemia, insulin resistance and hypertension may be related to the high level of oxidized pyrimidines presented in lymphocytes from women in the MGH group. Collins et al.[19] shows that Endonuclease III-sensitive sites are not correlated with glycemia; it is possible that reactive oxygen species resulting from glucose oxidation are more likely to cause guanine than pyrimidine oxidation. It appears that endonuclease III can give an indication of overall oxidative damage to DNA, resulting from a variety of diabetes-related causes, while FPG reflects specifically the damage resulting from hyperglycemia, namely 8-oxo-guanine [19].

In the present study we did not detect a significant difference in the urinary 8-OHdG concentration among the three groups. However, the values increased according to the concentration of glucose, suggesting a relationship between blood glucose and oxidative stress. Recently, Qiu et al.[33] showed that a single measurement of urinary 8-OHdG concentrations is not likely to provide a time-integrated measure of maternal cellular oxidative stress during the entire pregnancy. Therefore, longitudinal studies, with serial measurements of urinary 8-OHdG concentrations along with indices of insulin sensitivity and secretion across gestation, are needed to elucidate the mechanisms and pathophysiological consequences of maternal oxidative stress during pregnancy.

In conclusion, both diabetic and mild gestational hyperglycemia (MGH) pregnant women presented evidence of increased oxidative DNA damage. However, the specific DNA base that was mostly affected in the two conditions were different, purines in diabetic pregnancy and pyrimidines in MGH. Taken together, the present data underscore that hyperglycemia is an important stimulus to maternal DNA damage and even mild forms of hyperglycemia can induce measurable DNA damage and adverse consequences for pregnant women and their offspring [4, 2, 1]. Gestational dysglycemia (diabetes and MGH) identifies a group of women with higher oxidative DNA damage.

The utility of identifying the unique DNA bases mostly affected in MGH suggests that this condition is characterized by a group of patients not only with hyperglycemia but also with other clinical parameters responsible for oxidative DNA damage, indicating that regardless of glycemic intensity, affected bases and forms of treatment, hyperglycemic and diabetic groups require strict medical control in order to control hyperglycemia and other risk factors such as obesity, insulin resistance and hypertension by targeted intervention. One goal of future investigation is to identify screening tools and biomarkers that may be evident in women with MGH before the emergence of diabetes.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to the staff of the Laboratory for Experimental Research in Gynecology and Obstetrics and to Talisia Moretto for their technical contribution, and to the Research Support Center (GAP) of Botucatu Medical School – Unesp for assisting with statistical analyses. We thank Dr. Steven S. Witkin (Cornell University) for contributions to the final draft of the manuscript and for English language recommendations. This study was supported by FAPESP – Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo/Brazil (Grant number 2008/06642-6).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Botucatu Medical School, UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista
(2)
Instituto Dante Pazzanese de Cardiologia
(3)
Departamento de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu, UNESP

References

  1. HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group: Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study: associations with neonatal anthropometrics. Diabetes 2009,58(2):453–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Rudge MVC, Calderon IMP, Ramos MD, Abbade JF, Rugolo LMSS: Perinatal outcome of pregnancies complicated by diabetes and by maternal daily hyperglycemia not related to diabetes. A retrospective 10 year analysis. Gynecol Obst Invest 2000, 50:108–12. 10.1159/000010293View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Lapolla A, Dalfrà MG, Ragazzi E, De Cata AP, Fedele D: New International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) recommendations for diagnosing gestational diabetes compared with former criteria: a retrospective study on pregnancy outcome. Diabet Med 2011,28(9):1074–7. 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03351.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Rudge MV, Peraçoli JC, Berezowski AT, Calderon IM, Brasil MA: The oral glucose tolerance test is a poor predictor of hyperglycemia during pregnancy. Braz J Med Biol Res 1990, 23:1079–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Rudge MVC, Calderon IMP, Ramos MD, Suetake H, Peraçoli JC: Investigação diagnóstica do diabetes na gestação. Rev Bras Ginecol Obst 1996, 18:21–6.Google Scholar
  6. Negrato CA, Jovanovic L, Tambascia MA, Calderon IMP, Geloneze B, Dias A, Rudge MV: Mild gestational hyperglycaemia as a risk factor for metabolic syndrome in pregnancy and adverse perinatal outcomes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2008,24(4):324–30. 10.1002/dmrr.815View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Silva MRG, Calderon IMP, Gonçalves LC, Aragon FF, Padovani CR, Pimenta WP: Ocorrência de diabetes melito em mulheres com hiperglicemia em gestação prévia. Rev Saude Publica 2003, 37:345–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Rudge MV, Lima CA, Paulette TA, Jovanovic L, Negrato CA, Rudge CV, Calderon IM, Dias A, Atallah AN: Influence of lower cutoff values for 100-g oral glucose tolerance test and glycemic profile for identification of pregnant women at excessive fetal growth risk. Endocr Pract 2008, 14:678–85. 10.4158/EP.14.6.678View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Rudge MVC, Calderon IMP, Ramos MD, Brasil MAM, Rugolo LMSS, Bossolan G, Odland JO: Hiperglicemia materna diária diagnosticada pelo perfil glicêmico: um problema de saúde pública materno e perinatal. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2005, 27:691–7.Google Scholar
  10. Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H: Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care 2004,27(5):1047–53. 10.2337/diacare.27.5.1047View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Buchanan TA, Xiang AH: Gestational diabetes mellitus. J Clin Investig 2005, 115:485–91. 10.1172/JCI200524531View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim C, Newton KM, Knopp RH: Gestational diabetes and the incidence of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Care 2002, 25:1862–8. 10.2337/diacare.25.10.1862View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Warram JH, Martin BC, Krolewski AS, Soeldner JS, Kahn CR: Slow glucose removal rate and hyperinsulinemia precede the development of type II diabetes in the offspring of diabetic parents. Ann Intern Med 1990,113(12):909–15. 10.7326/0003-4819-113-12-909View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Butler AE, Janson J, Bonner-Weir S, Ritzel R, Rizza RA, Butler PC: Beta-cell deficit and increased beta-cell apoptosis in humans with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2003,52(1):102–10. 10.2337/diabetes.52.1.102View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lima PHO, Sinzato YK, Gelaleti RB, Calderon IMP, Rudge MVC, Damasceno DC: Genotoxicity evaluation in severe or mild diabetic pregnancy in laboratory animals. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2012, 119:408–13.Google Scholar
  16. Anderson D, Yu TW, Wright J, Ioannides C: An examination of DNA strand sreakage in the Comet Assay and antioxidant capacity in diabetic patients. Mutat Res 1998, 398:151–61. 10.1016/S0027-5107(97)00271-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dinçer Y, Akçay T, Ilkova H, Alademir Z, Ozbay G: DNA damage and antioxidant defense in peripheral leukocytes of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Mutat Res 2003, 527:49–55. 10.1016/S0027-5107(03)00073-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Pitozzi V, Giovannelli L, Bardini G, Rotella CM, Dolara P: Oxidative DNA damage in peripheral blood cells in type 2 diabetes mellitus: higher vulnerability of polymorphonuclear leukocytes. Mutat Res 2003, 28:129–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Collins AR, Raslová K, Smorovská MP, Petrovská H, Ondrusová A, Vohnout B, Fábry R, Dusinská M: DNA damage in diabetes: correlation with a clinical marker. Free Rad Biol Med 1998, 25:373–7. 10.1016/S0891-5849(98)00053-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Viana M, Aruoma OI, Herrera E, Bonet B: Oxidative damage in pregnant diabetic rats and their embryos. Free Rad Biol Med 2000, 29:1115–21. 10.1016/S0891-5849(00)00397-XView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Zengi A, Ercan G, Caglayan O, Tamsel S, Karadeniz M, Simsir I, Harman E, Kahraman C, Orman M, Cetinkalp S, Ozgen G: Increased oxidative DNA damage in lean normoglycemic offspring of type 2 diabetic patients. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 2011, 119:467–71. 10.1055/s-0031-1275289View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhang Y, Zhou J, Wang T, Cai L: High level glucose increases mutagenesis in human lymphoblastoid cells. Int J Biol Sci 2007,3(6):375–9.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. American Diabetes Association (ADA): Diagnosis and classification of diabete mellitus. Diabetes Care 2010, 32:30–45.Google Scholar
  24. Rudge MVC, Calderon IMP, Ramos MD, Maestá I, Souza LMS, Peraçoli JC: Perspectiva perinatal decorrente do rígido controle pré-natal em gestações complicadas pelo diabete. RBGO 1995, 17:26–32.Google Scholar
  25. Collins AR, Duthie SJ, Dobson VL: Direct enzymatic detection of endogenous base damage in human lymphocyte DNA. Carcinogenesis 1993, 14:1733–5. 10.1093/carcin/14.9.1733View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Blasiak J, Arabski M, Krupa R, Wozniak K, Zadrozny M, Kasznicki J, Zurawska M, Drzewoski J: DNA damage and repair in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Mutat Res 2004, 554:297–304. 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2004.05.011View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Lima PH, Sinzato YK, de Souza MS, Braz MG, Rudge MV, Damasceno DC: Evaluation of level of DNA damage in blood leukocytes of non-diabetic and diabetic rat exposed to cigarette smoke. Mutat Res 2007,628(2):117–22. 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2006.12.004View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Negrato CA, Jovanovic L, Rafacho A, Tambascia MA, Geloneze B, Dias A, Rudge MVC: Association between different levels of dysglycemia and metabolic syndrome in pregnancy. Diabetol Metab Syndr 2009, 1:3. 10.1186/1758-5996-1-3View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Yildiz A, Gür M, Yilmaz R, Demirbağ R, Celik H, Aslan M, Koçyiğit A: Lymphocyte DNA damage and total antioxidant status in patients with white-coat hypertension and sustained hypertension. Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars 2008,36(4):231–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Minamino T, Orimo M, Shimizu I, Kunieda T, Yokoyama M, Ito T, Nojima A, Nabetani A, Oike Y, Matsubara H, Ishikawa F, Komuro I: A crucial role for adipose tissue p53 in the regulation of insulin resistance. Nat Med 2009,15(9):1082–7. 10.1038/nm.2014View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Gür M, Elbasan Z, Yıldıray Şahin D, Yıldız Koyunsever N, Seker T, Ozaltun B, Caylı M, Kocyigit A: DNA damage and oxidative status in newly diagnosed, untreated, dipper and non-dipper hypertensive patients. Hypertens Res 2013,36(2):166–71. 10.1038/hr.2012.156View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Song F, Jia W, Yao Y, Hu Y, Lei L, Lin J, Sun X, Liu L: Oxidative stress, antioxidant status and DNA damage in patients with impaired glucose regulation and newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes. Clin Sci 2007, 112:599–606. 10.1042/CS20060323View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Qiu C, Hevner K, Abetew D, Enquobahrie DA, Williams MA: Oxidative DNA damage in early pregnancy and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: a pilot study. Clin Biochem 2011,44(10–11):804–8.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Gelaleti et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement