Effect of airborne particulate matter on mtDNA copy number: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Résumé fourni par la source
Ambient particulate matter (PM) is a well-established environmental risk factor for non-communicable diseases, yet its influence on mitochondrial function remains poorly defined. Mitochondrial DNA copy number (mtDNA-CN) serves as a biomarker of mitochondrial biogenesis, making it a candidate exposure biomarker. We conducted the study per PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO-CRD420261320957) and examined the association between ambient PM exposure and mtDNA-CN. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools, and relative and absolute changes in mtDNA-CN were pooled using random-effects models, with subgroup analyses by pollutant type and descriptive synthesis of mechanistic evidence. Of 1,224 records identified, 24 studies met inclusion criteria for quantitative analysis, with 12 reporting percentage change and 12 reporting absolute values, covering 13,092 participants. PM exposure was significantly associated with decreased percentage mtDNA-CN (ES: -4.90; 95% CI: -7.97 to -1.82; p = 0.002), while absolute mtDNA-CN levels increased significantly (ES = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.04; p = 0.030). Mechanistic pathways contributing included mtDNA hypermethylation, impaired mitochondrial biogenesis and dynamics. Our findings show ambient PM exposure alters mtDNA-CN, though directionality differs by metric, pointing to the need for larger prospective studies to validate mtDNA-CN as a reliable biomarker of airborne PM and nanoparticulate exposure.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Effect of airborne particulate matter on mtDNA copy number: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- Date Crossref
- 23/08/2026
- Éditeur
- openRxiv
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.