Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Nutr Rev. 2012 Mar;70(3):176–187. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2011.00462.x

Table 5.

Cysteine kinetics in children with edematous and non-edematous severe undernutrition1.

Cysteine Kinetics Clinical Phase 1 Clinical Phase 2 Clinical Phase 3
Non-edematous Edematous Non-edematous Edematous Non-edematous Edematous
µmol·kg −1·h−1 (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11)
Diet + Tracer inflow 7.9±0.06 7.8±0.02 7.8±0.02 7.8±0.02 7.9±0.01 7.8±0.02
Total flux2,3 37.2±2.56 27.9±2 a,6 37.7±2.86 35.3±2.46 48.4±3.4 44.8±2.9
Endogenous flux2–4 29.3±2.66 20±2a,5,6 30±2.86 27.6±2.46 40.6±3.4 37±2.9
De Novo Synthesis2–4 8.6±0.4 9.4±0.86 8.7±0.2 8.4±0.4 7.9±0.4 7.6±0.3
Protein derived flux2–4 20.7±2.56 11.4±1.7a,5,6 21.2±2.76 19.2±2.36 32.7±3.3 29.4±2.4

Data taken from ref. #21, Jahoor et al (2006)

1

Mean± SEM; Within Clinical Phase 1 (baseline) values were compared by non-paired t-test; to determine differential response to treatment, a RMANOVA was performed

2

Main effect of Clinical Phase, p <0.001

3

Main effect of Diagnosis p<0.05

4

Diagnosis by Clinical Phase Interaction, p<0.05.

5

Significantly different from corresponding Clinical Phase 2 value, P<0.05 (post hoc comparison by Bonferroni method)

6

Significantly different from corresponding Clinical Phase 3 value, P<0.001 (post hoc comparison by Bonferroni method)

a

Significantly different from non-edematous value p<0.05. (non-paired t-test).