3.1. Characteristics of Participants
Table 1 shows the clinical and sociodemographic characteristics of the 2376 participants (932 males and 1444 females), 50.51% of whom were aged 60 years or older. The majority of participants were from the Yao population, accounting for 74.62% of the total population; the majority of the subjects also had education levels below junior high school. The clinical median values (25th and 75th) of serum ALT, AST, IBIL, DBIL, and TBIL were 17.00 U/L (14.00 and 23.00), 21.00 U/L (19.00 and 25.00), 9.30 umol/L (7.50 and 11.60), 3.50 umol/L (2.80 and 4.60), and 12.80 umol/L (10.50 and 16.10), all of which were higher in the male population than in the female population. More participants self-reported to be non-smokers than non-drinkers.
Table 1. General characteristics of the study population
Variables
|
Overall (n = 2376)
|
Men (n = 932)
|
Women (n = 1444)
|
Age, years, n (%)
|
|
|
|
30–59
|
1176 (49.49)
|
405 (43.45)
|
771 (53.39)
|
≥60
|
1200 (50.51)
|
527 (56.54)
|
673 (46.61)
|
Ethnicity, n (%)
|
|
|
|
Han
|
487 (20.50)
|
175 (18.78)
|
312 (21.61)
|
Yao
|
1773 (74.62)
|
719 (77.15)
|
1054 (72.99)
|
Others
|
116 (4.88)
|
38 (4.08)
|
78 (5.40)
|
BMI, m/kg2, n (%)
|
|
|
|
<18.5
|
196 (8.25)
|
52 (5.58)
|
144 (9.97)
|
18.5–23.9
|
1437 (60.48)
|
589 (63.20)
|
848 (58.73)
|
≥24
|
743 (31.27)
|
291 (31.22)
|
452 (31.30)
|
Education, n (%)
|
|
|
|
≤6
|
1547 (65.11)
|
493 (52.90)
|
1054 (72.99)
|
>6
|
829 (34.89)
|
439 (47.10)
|
390 (27.01)
|
Occupation, n (%)
|
|
|
|
Farmer
|
2169 (91.29)
|
835 (89.59)
|
1334 (92.38)
|
Other
|
207 (8.71)
|
97 (10.41)
|
110 (7.62)
|
Type 2 diabetes, yes, n (%)
|
90 (3.79)
|
44 (4.72)
|
46 (3.19)
|
Hyperlipidemia, yes, n (%)
|
1158 (48.74)
|
445 (47.75)
|
713 (49.38)
|
Hypertension, yes, n (%)
|
1091 (45.92)
|
406 (43.56)
|
685 (47.44)
|
Smoking, yes, n (%)
|
458 (19.28)
|
451 (48.39)
|
7 (0.48)
|
Alcohol consumption, yes, n (%)
|
813 (34.22)
|
532 (57.08)
|
281 (19.46)
|
ALT (U/L)
|
17.00 (14.00, 23.00)
|
19.00 (15.00, 25.00)
|
16.00 (13.00, 21.00)
|
AST (U/L)
|
21.00 (19.00, 25.00)
|
23.00 (19.25, 27.00)
|
21.00 (18.00, 25.00)
|
IBIL (μmol/L)
|
9.30 (7.50, 11.60)
|
9.90 (7.93, 12.90)
|
9.00 (7.30, 11.00)
|
DBIL (μmol/L)
|
3.50 (2.80, 4.60)
|
4.10 (3.20, 5.40)
|
3.30 (2.70, 4.10)
|
TBIL (μmol/L)
|
12.80 (10.50, 16.10)
|
14.00 (11.20,1 8.00)
|
12.30 (10.10, 14.90)
|
Energy (kcal/day)
|
1468.05 (1055.15, 2041.67)
|
1688.56 (1215.95, 2304.64)
|
1315.71 (966.03, 1855.00)
|
Dietary Cu (mg/day)
|
0.99 (0.65, 1.52)
|
1.07 (0.74, 1.65)
|
0.91 (0.59, 1.42)
|
Plasma Cu (mg/L)
|
0.92 (0.80, 1.04)
|
0.89 (0.77, 0.99)
|
0.94 (0.83, 1.06)
|
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; ALT, alanine transaminase; AST, aspartate transaminase; IBIL, indirect bilirubin; DBIL, direct bilirubin; TBIL, total bilirubin; Cu, copper.
3.2. Correlation Analysis between Liver Function Parameters and Trace Element Copper
The correlation between dietary Cu, plasma Cu, and liver function parameters was analyzed via Spearman’s correlation analysis (Figure 1). The results showed that dietary Cu was positively correlated with serum DBIL (r = 0.051, p < 0.05) and negatively correlated with serum AST (r= −0.048, p < 0.05). Plasma Cu was negatively correlated with serum IBIL, TBIL, and DBIL, with correlation coefficients (r) ranging from −0.15 to −0.0096 (all p < 0.001). In the gender-based stratified analysis, in the male population, plasma Cu was positively correlated with serum AST (r = 0.066, p < 0.05). In the female population, dietary Cu was negatively correlated with serum AST (r= −0.11, p < 0.001), while plasma Cu was positively correlated with serum AST (r = 0.078, p < 0.01) and negatively correlated with bilirubin, with
Table 2. Relationship between log10-transformed dietary copper levels and ln-transformed liver function parameters
|
Model 1
|
|
Model 2
|
|
β (95% CI)
|
p
|
β (95% CI)
|
p
|
ALT
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
0.05 (−0.02, 0.12)
|
0.139
|
−0.04 (−0.15, 0.07)
|
0.514
|
Men
|
0.07 (−0.05, 0.19)
|
0.234
|
−0.001 (−0.21, 0.21)
|
0.990
|
Women
|
−0.02 (−0.10, 0.06)
|
0.670
|
−0.04 (−0.17, 0.09)
|
0.520
|
AST
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
−0.04 (−0.09, 0.01)
|
0.081
|
−0.12 (−0.19, −0.04)
|
0.002
|
Men
|
−0.002 (−0.09, 0.08)
|
0.966
|
−0.12 (−0.27, 0.04)
|
0.149
|
Women
|
−0.11 (−0.16, −0.06)
|
<0.001
|
−0.12 (−0.21, −0.04)
|
0.004
|
IBIL
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
0.01 (−0.04, 0.07)
|
0.587
|
−0.06 (−0.15, 0.03)
|
0.172
|
Men
|
0.07 (−0.03, 0.17)
|
0.158
|
−0.03 (−0.21, 0.15)
|
0.754
|
Women
|
−0.06 (−0.12, 0.00)
|
0.051
|
−0.07 (−0.17, 0.03)
|
0.161
|
DBIL
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
0.07 (0.01, 0.12)
|
0.024
|
−0.04 (−0.13, 0.06)
|
0.436
|
Men
|
−0.12 (−0.12, 0.09)
|
0.780
|
−0.11 (−0.30, 0.07)
|
0.221
|
Women
|
0.02 (−0.05, 0.09)
|
0.533
|
−0.01 (−0.12, 0.09)
|
0.806
|
TBIL
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
0.03 (−0.03, 0.08)
|
0.319
|
−0.06 (−0.14, 0.03)
|
0.201
|
Men
|
0.04 (−0.05, 0.14)
|
0.396
|
−0.06 (−0.23, 0.12)
|
0.507
|
Women
|
−0.04 (−0.10, 0.02)
|
0.186
|
−0.06 (−0.16, 0.04)
|
0.263
|
Notes: Model 1 was crude model. Model 2 was adjusted for age and/or sex, ethnicity, BMI, culture, occupation, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, smoking and alcohol consumption, and total energy intake.
3.4. Liver Function Parameters and Plasma Copper in Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
The results of the linear regression analysis of liver function parameters and plasma Cu are shown in Table 3. Plasma Cu was significantly associated with ALT (β = −0.20), IBIL (β = −0.41), DBIL (β = −0.53), and TBIL (β = −0.44) in all participants (all p < 0.05). After adjusting for covariates, the association of plasma Cu with bilirubin remained in the total population, while the association with ALT disappeared. In the gender-stratified analysis, plasma Cu was associated with IBIL in both men (β = −0.27) and women (β = −0.46) (all p < 0.05). In females, DBIL (β = −0.32) and TBIL (β = −0.42) were significantly associated with plasma Cu (all p < 0.05).
Table 3.Relationship between log10-transformed plasma copper levels and ln-transformed liver function parameters
|
Model 1
|
|
|
Model 2
|
|
β (95% CI)
|
p
|
β (95% CI)
|
p
|
ALT
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
−0.20 (−0.39, −0.01)
|
0.043
|
−0.13 (−0.32, 0.06)
|
0.181
|
Men
|
−0.25 (−0.55, 0.04)
|
0.091
|
−0.19 (−0.48, 0.10)
|
0.204
|
Women
|
0.078 (−0.17, 0.33)
|
0.539
|
−0.05 (−0.30, 0.20)
|
0.723
|
AST
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
0.09 (−0.04, 0.22)
|
0.179
|
0.04 (−0.09, 0.17)
|
0.519
|
Men
|
0.21 (−0.01, 0.42)
|
0.061
|
0.02 (−0.20, 0.24)
|
0.857
|
Women
|
0.17 (0.02, 0.33)
|
0.032
|
0.05 (−0.11, 0.21)
|
0.534
|
IBIL
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
−0.41 (−0.56, −0.26)
|
<0.001
|
−0.37 (−0.52, −0.22)
|
<0.001
|
Men
|
−0.24 (−0.48, 0.001)
|
0.051
|
−0.27 (−0.52, −0.02)
|
0.032
|
Women
|
−0.39 (−0.58, −0.20)
|
<0.001
|
−0.46 (−0.65, −0.27)
|
<0.001
|
DBIL
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
−0.53 (−0.69, −0.36)
|
<0.001
|
−0.22 (−0.37, −0.06)
|
0.007
|
Men
|
−0.16 (−0.42, 0.10)
|
0.231
|
−0.13 (−0.38, 0.13)
|
0.323
|
Women
|
−0.49 (−0.70, −0.29)
|
<0.001
|
−0.32 (−0.52, −0.12)
|
0.002
|
TBIL
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
−0.44 (−0.58, −0.29)
|
<0.001
|
−0.32 (−0.47, −0.17)
|
<0.001
|
Men
|
−0.20 (−0.44, 0.03)
|
0.091
|
−0.22 (−0.46, 0.02)
|
0.075
|
Women
|
−0.41 (−0.60, −0.23)
|
<0.001
|
−0.42 (−0.61, −0.23)
|
<0.001
|
Notes: Model 1 was crude model. Model 2 was adjusted for age and/or sex, ethnicity, BMI, culture, occupation, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, smoking and alcohol consumption, and total energy intake.
3.5. Dose–Response Relationship between Liver Function Parameters and Dietary Copper
Dose–response relationships between liver function parameters and dietary Cu were analyzed using a restricted cubic spline (RCS) (Figure 2). In Figure 2, we have kept only the plots where the statistical analysis is meaningful. We found a negative linear relationship between dietary Cu and serum AST in the total population (all Poverall association <0.05, all Pnon-linearity >0.05) (Figure 2a), with consistent results observed in females (all Poverall association <0.05, all Pnon -linearity >0.05) (Figure 2c). In men, there was a nonlinear relationship between dietary Cu and serum AST, IBIL, DBIL, and TBIL (all Poverall association <0.05, all Pnon-linearity <0.05) (Figure 2b). However, we did not find a relationship between dietary Cu and serum ALT.
3.6. Sensitivity Analysis
We excluded 813 participants with alcohol consumption habits, and the results after adjusting for covariates showed that a negative association between dietary Cu and serum AST remained in the general population (β = −0.09) and in the female population (β = −0.11) (all p < 0.05). A negative linear relationship between plasma Cu and serum IBIL (β = −0.32), DBIL (β = −0.19), and TBIL (β = −0.28) remained in all participants (all p < 0.05), and this relationship did not change significantly in women, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Sensitivity analysis of dietary copper, plasma copper, and liver function parameters
|
ALT
|
|
AST
|
|
IBIL
|
|
DBIL
|
|
TBIL
|
β (95% CI)
|
p
|
β (95% CI)
|
p
|
β (95% CI)
|
p
|
β (95% CI)
|
p
|
β (95% CI)
|
p
|
Dietary copper
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Model 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
−0.06 (−0.19, 0.08)
|
0.398
|
−0.09 (−0.17, −0.002)
|
0.044
|
−0.04 (−0.10, 0.02)
|
0.170
|
−0.01 (−0.07, 0.06)
|
0.876
|
−0.04 (−0.10, 0.02)
|
0.240
|
Men
|
0.06 (−0.12, 0.24)
|
0.504
|
0.03 (−0.09, 0.14)
|
0.656
|
−0.01 (−0.15, 0.13)
|
0.854
|
−0.15 (−0.30, −0.001)
|
0.049
|
−0.06 (−0.20, 0.08)
|
0.380
|
Women
|
−0.01 (−0.10, 0.08)
|
0.871
|
−0.10 (−0.16, −0.05)
|
<0.001
|
−0.06 (−0.13, 0.01)
|
0.080
|
0.02 (−0.06, 0.09)
|
0.689
|
−0.04 (−0.11, 0.02)
|
0.217
|
Model 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
−0.06 (−0.19, 0.08)
|
0.398
|
−0.09 (−0.17, −0.002)
|
0.044
|
−0.05 (−0.15, 0.06)
|
0.383
|
−0.03 (−0.14, 0.08)
|
0.586
|
−0.05 (−0.15, 0.06)
|
0.388
|
Men
|
−0.15 (−0.48, 0.18)
|
0.361
|
−0.06 (−0.29, 0.16)
|
0.577
|
−0.02 (−0.29, 0.25)
|
0.892
|
−0.18 (−0.46, 0.10)
|
0.200
|
−0.08 (−0.34, 0.18)
|
0.548
|
Women
|
−0.04 (−0.18, 0.11)
|
0.610
|
−0.11 (−0.20, −0.01)
|
0.025
|
−0.05 (−0.17, 0.06)
|
0.345
|
0.004 (−0.12, 0.11)
|
0.947
|
−0.04 (−0.15, 0.07)
|
0.462
|
Plasma copper
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Model 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
−0.15 (−0.38, 0.08)
|
0.213
|
0.11 (−0.04, 0.26)
|
0.162
|
−0.35 (−0.52, −0.17)
|
<0.001
|
−0.51 (−0.70, −0.31)
|
<0.001
|
−0.38 (−0.56, −0.21)
|
<0.001
|
Men
|
−0.47 (−0.90, −0.04)
|
0.032
|
0.11 (−0.18, 0.40)
|
0.453
|
−0.19 (−0.53, 0.16)
|
0.288
|
−0.10 (−0.46, 0.28)
|
0.633
|
−0.13 (−0.47, 0.20)
|
0.440
|
Women
|
0.15 (−0.14, 0.43)
|
0.308
|
0.17 (−0.01, 0.35)
|
0.057
|
−0.35 (−0.56, −0.14)
|
0.001
|
−0.48 (−0.71, −0.25)
|
<0.001
|
−0.39 (−0.59, −0.18)
|
<0.001
|
Model 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
−0.15 (−0.38, 0.09)
|
0.221
|
0.03 (−0.12, 0.18)
|
0.709
|
−0.32 (−0.50, −0.14)
|
0.001
|
−0.19 (−0.38, −0.003)
|
0.046
|
−0.28 (−0.46, −0.10)
|
0.002
|
Men
|
−0.39 (−0.82, 0.04)
|
0.075
|
−0.04 (−0.34, 0.25)
|
0.781
|
−0.09 (−0.44, 0.26)
|
0.607
|
−0.01 (−0.38, 0.35)
|
0.947
|
−0.05 (−0.39, 0.30)
|
0.785
|
Women
|
0.01 (−0.27, 0.30)
|
0.928
|
0.06 (−0.12, 0.23)
|
0.545
|
−0.41 (−0.63, −0.19)
|
<0.001
|
−0.29 (−0.52, −0.07)
|
0.012
|
−0.38 (−0.59, −0.16)
|
0.001
|
Notes: Model 1 was crude model. Model 2 was adjusted for age and/or sex, ethnicity, BMI, culture, occupation, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, smoking, alcohol consumption, and total energy intake.