↓ Skip to main content

l-5-Methyltetrahydrofolate Supplementation Increases Blood Folate Concentrations to a Greater Extent than Folic Acid Supplementation in Malaysian Women

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nutrition, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
l-5-Methyltetrahydrofolate Supplementation Increases Blood Folate Concentrations to a Greater Extent than Folic Acid Supplementation in Malaysian Women
Published in
Journal of Nutrition, June 2018
DOI 10.1093/jn/nxy057
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda M Henderson, Rika E Aleliunas, Su Peng Loh, Geok Lin Khor, Sarah Harvey-Leeson, Melissa B Glier, David D Kitts, Tim J Green, Angela M Devlin

Abstract

Folic acid fortification of grains is mandated in many countries to prevent neural tube defects. Concerns regarding excessive intakes of folic acid have been raised. A synthetic analog of the circulating form of folate, l-5-methyltetrahydrofolate (l-5-MTHF), may be a potential alternative. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of folic acid or l-5-MTHF supplementation on blood folate concentrations, methyl nutrient metabolites, and DNA methylation in women living in Malaysia, where there is no mandatory fortification policy. In a 12-wk, randomized, placebo-controlled intervention trial, healthy Malaysian women (n = 142, aged 20-45 y) were randomly assigned to receive 1 of the following supplements daily: 1 mg (2.27 μmol) folic acid, 1.13 mg (2.27 μmol) l-5-MTHF, or a placebo. The primary outcomes were plasma and RBC folate and vitamin B-12 concentrations. Secondary outcomes included plasma total homocysteine, total cysteine, methionine, betaine, and choline concentrations and monocyte long interspersed nuclear element-1 (LINE-1) methylation. The folic acid and l-5-MTHF groups had higher (P < 0.001) RBC folate (mean ± SD: 1498 ± 580 and 1951 ± 496 nmol/L, respectively) and plasma folate [median (25th, 75th percentiles): 40.1 nmol/L (24.9, 52.7 nmol/L) and 52.0 nmol/L (42.7, 73.1 nmol/L), respectively] concentrations compared with RBC folate (958 ± 345 nmol/L) and plasma folate [12.6 nmol/L (8.80, 17.0 nmol/L)] concentrations in the placebo group at 12 wk. The l-5-MTHF group had higher RBC folate (1951 ± 496 nmol/L; P = 0.003) and plasma folate [52.0 nmol/L (42.7, 73.1 nmol/L); P = 0.023] at 12 wk than did the folic acid group [RBC folate, 1498 ± 580 nmol/L; plasma folate, 40.1 nmol/L (24.9, 52.7 nmol/L)]. The folic acid and l-5-MTHF groups had 17% and 15%, respectively, lower (P < 0.001) plasma total homocysteine concentrations than did the placebo group at 12 wk; there were no differences between the folic acid and l-5-MTHF groups. No differences in plasma vitamin B-12, total cysteine, methionine, betaine, and choline and monocyte LINE-1 methylation were observed. These findings suggest differential effects of l-5-MTHF compared with folic acid supplementation on blood folate concentrations but no differences on plasma total homocysteine lowering in Malaysian women. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01584050.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 34 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 9%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 37 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 June 2022.
All research outputs
#3,623,572
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nutrition
#2,656
of 9,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,420
of 342,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nutrition
#35
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,885 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.