Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
A possible role for lutein and zeaxanthin in cognitive function in the elderly
Johnson EJ.. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2012-10-10
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Epidemiologic studies suggest that dietary lutein and zeaxanthin may be of benefit in maintaining cognitive health. Among the carotenoids, lutein and zeaxanthin are the only two that cross the blood-retina barrier to form macular pigment (MP) in the eye. They also preferentially accumulate in the human brain. Lutein and zeaxanthin in macula from nonhuman primates were found to be significantly correlated with their concentrations in matched brain tissue. Therefore, MP can be used as a biomarker of lutein and zeaxanthin in primate brain tissue. This is of interest given that a significant correlation was found between MP density and global cognitive function in healthy older adults. An examination of a relation between cognition and lutein and zeaxanthin concentrations in the brain tissue of decedents from a population-based study in centenarians found that zeaxanthin concentrations in brain tissue were significantly related to antemortem measures of global cognitive function, memory retention, verbal fluency, and dementia severity after adjustment for age, sex, education, hypertension, and diabetes. In univariate analyses, lutein was related to recall and verbal fluency, but the strength of the associations was attenuated with adjustment for covariates. However, lutein concentrations in the brain were significantly lower in individuals with mild cognitive impairment than in those with normal cognitive function. Last, in a 4-mo, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial in older women that involved lutein supplementation (12 mg/d), alone or in combination with DHA (800 mg/d), verbal fluency scores improved significantly in the DHA, lutein, and combined-treatment groups. Memory scores and rate of learning improved significantly in the combined-treatment group, who also showed a trend toward more efficient learning. When all of these observations are taken into consideration, the idea that lutein and zeaxanthin can influence cognitive function in older adults warrants further study.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Johnson, E. J. (2012). A possible role for lutein and zeaxanthin in cognitive function in the elderly. The American journal of clinical nutrition. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.112.034611
Vancouver
Johnson EJ. A possible role for lutein and zeaxanthin in cognitive function in the elderly. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2012. doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.034611. PMID: 23053547.
BibTeX
@article{johnson2012-23053547,
author = {Johnson, E. J.},
title = {{A possible role for lutein and zeaxanthin in cognitive function in the elderly}},
journal = {The American journal of clinical nutrition},
year = {2012},
doi = {10.3945/ajcn.112.034611},
pmid = {23053547},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.112.034611}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Epidemiologic studies suggest that dietary lutein and zeaxanthin may be of benefit in maintaining cognitive health.
- Lutein and zeaxanthin in macula from nonhuman primates were found to be significantly correlated with their concentrations in matched brain tissue.
- This is of interest given that a significant correlation was found between MP density and global cognitive function in healthy older adults.
- An examination of a relation between cognition and lutein and zeaxanthin concentrations in the brain tissue of decedents from a population-based study in centenarians found that zeaxanthin concentrations in brain tissue were significantly related to antemortem measures of global cognitive function, memory retention, verbal fluency, and dementia severity after adjustment for age, sex, education, hypertension, and diabetes.
- However, lutein concentrations in the brain were significantly lower in individuals with mild cognitive impairment than in those with normal cognitive function.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The American journal of clinical nutrition) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 23053547) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.