中文摘要：

目的 研究职业性铝接触对工人认知功能和外周血淋巴细胞谷氨酸受体蛋白表达的影响,探讨谷氨酸受体作为铝作业工人认知功能损害的外周生物标志物的可能性.方法 于2014年10至12月,采用整群抽样方法,选择121名电解铝车间工人作为接触组,231名热电车间和后勤部门工人作为对照组.采用简易精神状态量表（MMSE）、画钟试验（CDT）、数字广度测试（DST）、言语流畅性测试（VFT）、物体记忆测试（FOM）分析研究对象认知功能;石墨炉原子吸收法测定血浆铝水平,作为内接触指标;酶联免疫吸附试验（ELISA）测定外周血淋巴细胞谷氨酸受体蛋白含量,包括N-甲基-D-天冬氨酸受体亚单位（NR1、NR2A和NR2B）、代谢型谷氨酸受体1（mGluR1）;对认知功能测试指标和谷氨酸受体蛋白含量进行相关性分析.结果 对照组工人血浆铝含量为（132.52±80.40）μg/L,接触组为（182.88±72.32）μg/L,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;以血浆铝水平百分位数（P25、P50和P75）为界将研究对象分为对照组、低血铝组、中血铝组、高血铝组,各组工人血浆铝含量差异均有统计学意义（均P〈0.01）.高血铝组工人回忆能力得分明显低于对照组、低、中血铝组,差异均有统计学意义（均P〈0.05）;高血铝组数字广度正序（DSF）、DST得分低于对照组、低、中血铝组,低、中、高血铝组数字广度倒序（DSB）得分低于对照组,中、高血铝组VFT得分低于对照组和低血铝组,差异均有统计学意义（均P〈0.05）.高血铝组工人NR1和NR2A蛋白表达量明显低于对照组、低、中血铝组,中、高血铝组工人mGluR1蛋白表达量明显高于对照组、低血铝组,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;NR1、NR2A蛋白表达量与血浆铝含量呈负相关（r分别为-0.475、-0.692,均P〈0.05）,mGluR1蛋白表达量与血浆铝含量呈正相关（r=0.756,P〈0.05）;NR1蛋白表达量与DSF、DSB?

英文摘要：

Objective To investigate the influence of occupational aluminum exposure on cognitive function and glutamate receptor protein expression in peripheral blood lymphocytes in workers and the possibility of glutamate receptor being used as a biomarker for cognitive impairment in aluminum workers. Methods From October to December, 2014, cluster sampling was performed to select 121 workers in aluminum electrolysis workshop as exposure group and 231 workers in thermoelectric workshop and logistics department as control group. Mini-Mental State Examination, clock drawing test, digit span test（DST）, verbal fluency test（VFT）, and Fuld Object-Memory （FOM） Evaluation were used to analyze cognitive function. Graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry was used to measure plasma aluminum level as an exposure indicator. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to measure the content of glutamate receptor proteins in peripheral blood lymphocytes, including the subunits of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor NR1, NR2A, and NR2B and metabotropic glutamate receptor 1 （mGluR1）. The correlation between cognitive function indices and the content of glutamate receptor proteins was analyzed. Results There was no significant difference in plasma aluminum level between the control group and the exposure group （132.52±80.40μg/L vs 182.88±72.32μg/L, P〉0.05）. According to the plasma aluminum level, the study subjects were divided into control group and low-, medium-, and high-level plasma aluminum groups, and there were significant differences in plasma aluminum level between these groups（all P〈0.01）. The high-level plasma aluminum group had a significantly lower memory ability score than the control group and the low-and medium-level plasma aluminum groups （all P〈0.05）. The high-level plasma aluminum group had lower DST and digital span forward （DSF） scores than the control group and the low-and medium-level plasma aluminum groups. The low-, medium-, and high-level plasma aluminum groups had lo