Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the human body, inorganic arsenic (iAs) is methylated via the one-carbon cycle to form monomethylarsonic acid (MMA) and dimethylarsinic acid (DMA). Lower proportions of iAs and MMA, and higher proportions of DMA in urine indicate efficient methylation; formation of DMA is thought to detoxify iAs and MMA. Studies on folate, vitamin B-12 and iAs methylation yield mixed findings, depending on whether folate and vitamin B-12 were assessed from diet, supplements, or using a blood biomarker. OBJECTIVE: First, to compare the associations of serum concentrations and estimated intake of folate and vitamin B-12 with indicators of iAs methylation. Second, to highlight the implications of these different B-vitamin assessment techniques on the emerging evidence of the impact of dietary modifications on iAs methylation. METHODS: The study was conducted among ~7-year-old children from Montevideo, Uruguay. Serum folate and vitamin B-12 levels were measured on the Horiba ABX Pentra 400 analyzer; urinary arsenic was measured using High-Performance Liquid Chromatography on-line with Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry. Dietary intakes were assessed using the average of two 24-h dietary recalls. Linear regressions assessed the associations of serum levels, and dietary intakes of folate (n = 237) and vitamin B-12 (n = 217) with indicators of iAs methylation. Models were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, total urinary arsenic, and rice intake. RESULTS: Serum folate and vitamin B-12 levels were above the adequacy threshold for 99% of the participants. No associations were observed between serum folate, serum vitamin B-12, or vitamin B-12 intake and iAs methylation. Folate intake was inversely associated with urinary %MMA [β (95% confidence interval): -1.04 (-1.89, -0.18)]. CONCLUSION: Additional studies on the role of B-vitamins in iAs methylation are needed to develop a deeper understanding of the implications of assessing folate and vitamin B-12 intake compared to the use of biomarkers. Where possible, both methods should be employed because they reflect different exposure windows and inherent measurement error, and if used individually, will likely continue to contribute to lack of consensus.