Free or total 25OHD as marker for vitamin D status?

R Bouillon - Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 2016 - academic.oup.com
R Bouillon
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 2016academic.oup.com
(DBP). Why should this interest the readers of JBMR? Clinicians and even laypeople are
very familiar with the use of serum 25OHD concentrations as the most reliable marker of the
vitamin D status. Moreover, they are familiar with the general belief that African Americans
have low levels of 25OHD, reflecting a poor vitamin D status. In a remarkable study
published in the New England Journal of Medicine,(2) Powe and colleagues, however,
concluded that this is owing to low serum concentration of DBP in African Americans, and …
(DBP). Why should this interest the readers of JBMR? Clinicians and even laypeople are very familiar with the use of serum 25OHD concentrations as the most reliable marker of the vitamin D status. Moreover, they are familiar with the general belief that African Americans have low levels of 25OHD, reflecting a poor vitamin D status. In a remarkable study published in the New England Journal of Medicine,(2) Powe and colleagues, however, concluded that this is owing to low serum concentration of DBP in African Americans, and after correction, the “bioavailable 25OHD levels” are similar in black and white people. This article generated a broad debate as to whether the dogma of poor vitamin D status in African Americans might be because of technical errors in using total rather than free/bioavailable 25OHD concentrations. DBP is the major serum transport protein for all vitamin D metabolites and has both a high capacity and high affinity for all hydroxylated vitamin D metabolites. Therefore, the free (ie, unbound to proteins) concentration of 25OHD or 1, 25 (OH) 2D (3–5) is below 0.1% of their total concentration. Bioavailable 25OHD is the sum of free 25OHD and 25OHD loosely bound to albumin and is equally a very small fraction of the total concentration.(2, 4, 6–8) It is presently unclear whether free or bioavailable 25OHD is better reflecting the availability of 25OHD for cells or tissues. Most hormones that are ligands for nuclear receptors are bound to specific serum-binding proteins, and there are good data to support the idea that free (or bioavailable) hormones are physiologically more relevant than their total concentration. This even resulted in the generalized use of free T4 and free T3 measurements rather than total concentrations for the diagnosis of thyroid disorders.(9) This also largely applies to free testosterone concentrations,(10) whereas cortisol concentration in saliva is a good proxy for free cortisol concentrations. Therefore, the question of whether free 25OHD or free 1, 25 (OH) 2D is a better marker for vitamin D status and predictor of skeletal or extra-skeletal health outcomes is relevant. Indeed, renal tubular cells have access to free 25OHD via its serosal membrane but also to 25OHD bound to DBP, filtered in the glomeruli, by using the cargo receptor megalin-cubulin expressed at the luminal site.(11) Megalin is also expressed in lung, thyroid, mammary gland, gallbladder, and thyroid,(7) whereas most other cells do not or only minimally express such uptake mechanism and, therefore, depend on non-protein-bound 25OHD as substrate for local, paracrine production and action of 1, 25 (OH) 2D. A possible role of megalin in the parathyroid glands is unclear. The measurement of most free hormone concentrations has been problematic for a long time. It took more than two decades of research to (nearly) optimize the quality of measurements of free thyroid hormone concentrations,(9) and for free testosterone and cortisol, there is still more work to do. Free 25OHD and 1, 25 (OH) 2D are more difficult to measure than the other free hormones because their% free concentration is at least 10-fold lower than the% free concentration of thyroid hormones or cortisol. Ultrafiltration or equilibrium dialysis has been used (4, 6) but is technically demanding because of problems of absorption, minor contaminations of labeled tracers (25OHD and a small freely diffusible small molecule), and requirement of very sensitive assay methodology. These labor-intensive and expensive measurements are, moreover, only operational with great difficulties in a few research laboratories.(3, 4, 8) A direct two-step ELISA has recently been introduced (12, 13) but still needs …
Oxford University Press