Epidemiologic and laboratory studies indicate that dietary selenium protects against prostate cancer. Results from clinical trials suggest that selenium-enriched yeast (SY) but not selenomethionine (SeMet) may be effective at reducing prostate cancer risk. Our objectives were to directly compare for the first time the effects of SeMet and SY on prostate cancer relevant biomarkers in men. We performed a randomized double blind, placebo-controlled trial of SY (200 or 285 μg/day) and SeMet (200 μg/day) administered for 9 months in 69 healthy men. Primary endpoints included blood levels of selenium-containing compounds and oxidative stress biomarkers [urine 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) and 8-iso-prostaglandin-F (8-iso-PGF) and blood glutathione (GSH)]. Secondary endpoints included plasma glucose and PSA levels. Compliance was high in all groups (>95%). Plasma selenium levels were increased 93%, 54%, and 86% after 9 months in SeMet and low- and high-dose SY groups, respectively, and returned to baseline levels after a 3-month washout (P < 0.05). Levels of 8-OHdG and 8-iso-PGF were decreased 34% and 28%, respectively, after 9 months in the high-dose SY group (P < 0.05). These decreases were greatest in individuals with low baseline plasma levels of selenium (<127 ng/mL). No changes in serum PSA or blood glucose and GSH were observed. Overall, we showed for the first time, reductions in biomarkers of oxidative stress following supplementation with SY but not SeMet in healthy men. These findings suggest that selenium-containing compounds other than SeMet may account for the decrease in oxidative stress. Cancer Prev Res; 7(8); 796–804. ©2014 AACR.

See related article by Merrill J. Christensen, p. 781

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in men (1). Diet-derived agents including selenium have been shown to have chemopreventive potential against prostate cancer (2, 3). Epidemiologic and laboratory investigations have shown that dietary selenium is protective against the development of cancer at many sites including the prostate (3–7). In the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer (NPC) study (8), supplementation with selenium-enriched yeast (SY) in men was associated with an approximately 50% reduction in cancer morbidity and mortality, including a 63% decrease in prostate cancer incidence, with subjects having low baseline plasma selenium levels (<122 ng/mL) showing the greatest benefit (9). However, in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT), which was designed to test the protective effects of selenomethionine (SeMet) and vitamin E individually and in combination against prostate cancer (10), no protection was observed supporting the notion that SeMet is a form of selenium which is not highly active against prostate cancer (10). This is in line with laboratory studies which have consistently demonstrated that although multiple organic forms of selenium have anticancer activity, SeMet alone was relatively inactive (11). These results suggest that although SeMet represents a major form of selenium in SY, it is not likely the form responsible for the chemopreventive properties of SY.

Although results from previous studies support the chemoprotective efficacy of SY (8, 9) but not SeMet (10), no direct comparison between SY and SeMet supplementation in men has been reported. Direct comparisons in laboratory animals have revealed differing results. In the rat, McCormick and colleagues (12) reported the lack of protective effect of both SeMet and SY against the development of prostate cancer. In dogs, no differences were observed in tissue selenium levels or in the levels of several biomarkers of prostate epithelial DNA damage, proliferation, or apoptosis between SY and SeMet supplemented groups (13). In contrast with the above mentioned studies, supplementation with different forms of selenium (selenite, SeMet, and SY) resulted in clear differences in gene expression profiles in mice; SY was the only form associated with a pattern of decreased DNA damage (14).

To directly compare the effects of SY and SeMet for the first time in humans, we conducted a double blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial in healthy adult men. Our primary objectives were to determine and compare the effects of these different forms of selenium on prostate cancer relevant biomarkers including blood selenium levels and blood and urinary biomarkers of oxidative stress. A secondary objective in this trial was to determine the impact of SY and SeMet on PSA and glucose levels.

Trial design

The study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01112449) was conducted with approval from the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) of the Penn State University (PSU; University Park, PA) College of Medicine and Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (New Brunswick, NJ). Recruitment, interviewing, and sample collections were performed at three sites: Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute (Hershey, PA) PSU Clinical Research Center (State College, PA), and the Cancer Institute of New Jersey (New Brunswick, NJ). Subjects were recruited from local surrounding areas using fliers, newspaper and radio advertisements, online announcements, and word of mouth. Potentially eligible subjects as assessed by telephone prescreening were interviewed in the clinic after providing informed consent. Each subject was screened for eligibility based upon the following criteria: Healthy male nonsmokers, 20 to 79 years of age, normal serum PSA based upon the age- and race-specific cutoffs defined in the 2009 American Urological Association (AUA) Clinical Guidelines (15), no history or evidence of diabetes, prostate cancer, liver, or kidney disease, and not taking >50 μg/day selenium as a dietary supplement.

Eligible subjects were randomly assigned with equal probability using a computer-generated list prepared by the biostatistician to one of four treatment groups: Placebo (non-selenized-yeast), low-dose SY (SY200, 200 μg selenium/day), high-dose SY (SY285, 285 μg selenium/day), and SeMet (200 μg selenium/day; Fig. 1) by the investigational pharmacists. The randomization status was blinded to all others in the study except to the PSU investigational pharmacists until a patient had finished the study and until near the end of the study upon IRB approval. The dose and form of selenium in the SY200 and SeMet groups were selected to match those used in the NPC (8) and SELECT (10) studies, respectively. The dose of selenium in the SY285 group was selected so that the levels of SeMet would be equivalent to that in the SeMet group, based upon a SeMet concentration in SY of 70% (16). Selenium-enriched yeast (SelenoExcell) was provided by Cypress Systems, Inc.; SeMet was purchased from Sabinsa Corporation and packaged by Cypress Systems, Inc. Placebo, SeMet, and SY capsules were identical in appearance. At baseline, a structured questionnaire was administered to each subject to collect information on demographics, medical history, medications, dietary supplements, alcohol consumption, and cigarette smoking history. Study participants were remunerated with $35 per visit.

Figure 1.

Subject flowchart summarized according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials.

Figure 1.

Subject flowchart summarized according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials.

Close modal

After randomization, participants were provided their respective capsules along with instructions for usage. After 3, 6, and 9 months, participants returned to the clinic to receive new and return unused capsules. At 9 months, all subjects were switched to placebo for the final 3 months of the trial (washout period). At baseline and after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, biologic samples including blood and urine were collected and processed as described below.

Outcome measures included plasma total selenium at baseline, and 3, 9, and 12 months; blood free and protein-bound GSH and urinary 8-OHdG and 8-iso-PGF at baseline and 9 and 12 months. Secondary outcomes included blood glucose and serum PSA at baseline, and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months as well as selenium speciation in plasma at baseline and 9 months.

Collection and processing of biologic samples

Fasting venous blood samples were collected between 9:00 am and 3:30 pm into either plain or EDTA-containing tubes and immediately placed on ice. An aliquot of whole blood was removed from the EDTA tube for analysis of glutathione (GSH). Remaining samples were centrifuged at 4°C and resulting plasma or serum was aliquoted and immediately frozen at −80°C. Packed red cells were washed 3× in saline and stored at −80°C. Urine was placed immediately on ice, aliquoted and frozen at −80°C.

Analysis of blood and urine markers

Plasma total selenium levels were determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry as described previously (17).

Selenium speciation in plasma.

Plasma SeMet, methylselenocysteine (MSC), selenate, and selenite were analyzed by Ion Chromatography Inductively Coupled Plasma Collision Reaction Cell Mass Spectrometry by Applied Speciation and Consulting, LLC.

Glutathione and glutathionylated proteins.

Total GSH (GSH and glutathione disulfide) and protein-bound GSH were analyzed as described previously (18, 19). Hemoglobin was determined by spectrophotometrically using Drabkin's reagent (20).

8-Iso-prostaglandin-F2α (8-iso-PGF) and 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) in urine were analyzed by ELISA (Cayman Biochemical Cat. Nos. 516351 and 589320). Creatinine was determined by reaction with picrate as described previously (21).

PSA and glucose.

Serum PSA was determined using the ADVIA Centaur XP Immunoassay System (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc.). Blood glucose levels were determined using an Ortho Vitros 5600 analyzer.

Statistical analysis

Comparison of plasma selenium levels at each time point between groups was performed by ANOVA with adjustment of multiple comparisons using Tukey method. Plasma levels of selenium metabolites were compared between baseline and 9 months using the Welch Two Sample t test (22). Changes in serum PSA, plasma glucose and blood GSH and protein-bound GSH and urine 8-isoprostane and 8-OHdG levels from baseline at different time points were compared between the four treatment groups using ANOVA. Changes from baseline for urinary 8-OHdG and 8-isoprostane at 9 months were compared for each treatment group by baseline plasma selenium level tertile using ANOVA.

Study subject characteristics

The clinical phase of the study was conducted from May 2008 until June 2013. A total of 130 subjects were randomized, of which 69 were included in the analysis (Fig. 1). Of the 61 randomized subjects not included in the analysis, 25 discontinued intervention before completion, 8 were lost to follow-up, 25 had not completed the protocol as of June 1, 2013, and 3 were excluded from analysis due to lack of compliance (Fig. 1). The characteristics of these study participants are summarized in Table 1. All subjects were nonsmokers (nonsmoker for at least for 1 year before entry into the study) and had no history of chronic disease or high-dose antioxidant supplement usage. Subjects ranged from 23 to 78 years of age (mean ± SD = 51.1 ± 14.0 years). No significant differences were observed between subjects by age, weight, or BMI between treatment groups. A total of 70% of subjects fell within the normal to overweight categories with 30% being obese (BMI > 30).

Table 1.

Study subject characteristics at baseline

Race/ethnicity
GroupNAge, yn (%)BMI (kg/m2)a
Placebo (plain yeast) 18 48.1 ± 14.6 (22–70) White: 17 (94%) 30.0 ± 4.79 (22.0–38.3) 
   Black: 1 (6%)  
   Asian: 0 (0%)  
SY (200 μg/d) 16 50.7 ± 16.2 (23–78) White: 15 (94%) 28.0 ± 3.20 (22.4–34.9) 
   Black: 1 (6%)  
   Asian: 0 (0%)  
SY (285 μg/d) 15 51.3 ± 12.0 (25–72) White: 13 (87%) 27.8 ± 3.14 (23.7–34.2) 
   Black: 1 (7%)  
   Asian: 1 (7%)  
SeMet (200 μg/d) 20 54.0 ± 13.4 (30–75) White: 17 (85%) 28.5 ± 3.79 (23.0–36.4) 
   Black: 1 (5%)  
   Asian: 2 (10%)  
Race/ethnicity
GroupNAge, yn (%)BMI (kg/m2)a
Placebo (plain yeast) 18 48.1 ± 14.6 (22–70) White: 17 (94%) 30.0 ± 4.79 (22.0–38.3) 
   Black: 1 (6%)  
   Asian: 0 (0%)  
SY (200 μg/d) 16 50.7 ± 16.2 (23–78) White: 15 (94%) 28.0 ± 3.20 (22.4–34.9) 
   Black: 1 (6%)  
   Asian: 0 (0%)  
SY (285 μg/d) 15 51.3 ± 12.0 (25–72) White: 13 (87%) 27.8 ± 3.14 (23.7–34.2) 
   Black: 1 (7%)  
   Asian: 1 (7%)  
SeMet (200 μg/d) 20 54.0 ± 13.4 (30–75) White: 17 (85%) 28.5 ± 3.79 (23.0–36.4) 
   Black: 1 (5%)  
   Asian: 2 (10%)  

aValues are mean ± SD (range).

Compliance and adverse effects

A total five of subjects (two in the placebo group, two in the SY285 group, and one in the SeMet group) were removed from protocol due to adverse events: High PSA (1, SY285 group), prostate cancer (1 in SY285 group and 1 in SeMet group), and high blood glucose levels (two in placebo group). Among the participants that completed the study, no serious adverse effects were reported regardless of arm. All potential adverse events reported were minor (e.g., headaches and colds) and none were attributed to protocol treatment. Compliance was consistently high when assessed by either pill count or patient diary entries. Percent compliance was 97.0 ± 4.7 (mean ± SD) in all subjects and did not differ between treatment arms (placebo, 95.9 ± 5.4; SY200, 97.8 ± 3.9; SY285, 96.1 ± 6.3; SeMet, 98.0 ± 3.1).

Plasma selenium levels

Plasma selenium levels were not different between groups at baseline (Fig. 2) and were consistent with those reported in the SELECT trial (10). In all selenium-treated groups, there was a progressive increase in levels from 3 to 9 months followed by a return to baseline after the 3-month washout. In the SY groups, the increases were dose dependent reaching a maximum increase above baseline of 86% in the SY285 group and 54% in the SY200 group. When comparing the change from baseline between the four groups for months 3, 9, and 12 separately, significant differences were observed between all three selenium groups and placebo (P < 0.0001) and between both the SeMet and SY285 groups and the SY200 group, respectively (P < 0.05). At 12 months, statistical differences were observed between both SeMet and SY285 groups and placebo only (P < 0.001).

Figure 2.

Effect of supplementation with SeMet or SY on plasma selenium levels in adult men. Subjects were randomized to placebo (n = 18), 200 μg/day SY (n = 16), 285 μg/day SY (n = 15), or 200 μg/day SeMet (n = 20). Supplementation continued for 9 months followed by a 3-month washout. Plasma total selenium levels were assessed by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Symbols and bars, mean and SE values, respectively. *, Significantly different from placebo, P < 0.0001; †, significantly different from the low-dose SY group, P < 0.005; ‡, significantly different from the low-dose SY group, P < 0.05.

Figure 2.

Effect of supplementation with SeMet or SY on plasma selenium levels in adult men. Subjects were randomized to placebo (n = 18), 200 μg/day SY (n = 16), 285 μg/day SY (n = 15), or 200 μg/day SeMet (n = 20). Supplementation continued for 9 months followed by a 3-month washout. Plasma total selenium levels were assessed by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Symbols and bars, mean and SE values, respectively. *, Significantly different from placebo, P < 0.0001; †, significantly different from the low-dose SY group, P < 0.005; ‡, significantly different from the low-dose SY group, P < 0.05.

Close modal

Plasma selenium speciation

Selenium speciation analyses were conducted in plasma samples collected at baseline and after 9 months from a subset of subjects randomly selected from the SeMet and high-dose SY groups (n = 5 per group; Table 2). These groups were selected on the basis of the equivalent doses of SeMet. Selenite was detected in all samples, whereas, selenate and MSC levels were below the limits of detection. SeMet was not detected in baseline samples but was detected in all 9-month samples. After 9 months of supplementation, significant increases from baseline were observed for SeMet and selenite in both groups (P < 0.001). Overall, increases in SeMet and selenite could only account for 0.8% and 5.1%, respectively, of the increases observed for selenium at 9 months. Increases in SeMet levels from undetectable at baseline to 0.74 ng/mL in the SeMet group and 0.55 ng/mL in the SY285 group were not significantly different between groups. Likewise, increases in selenite levels of 166% in the SeMet group and 88% in the SY285 group were not significantly different between groups.

Table 2.

Plasma selenium speciation

Plasma concentration (ng/mL)a
AnalytebGroupBaseline9 MonthsChange from baseline
Selenium SeMet 139 ± 7.0 256 ± 14.9c 117 ± 13.2 
 SY285 129 ± 8.7 256 ± 26.9c 128 ± 30.2 
SeMet SeMet <0.12 0.736 ± 0.16c 0.616 ± 0.16 
 SY285 <0.12 0.550 ± 0.07c 0.430 ± 0.07 
Selenite SeMet 2.97 ± 0.22 7.90 ± 0.37c 4.93 ± 0.42 
 SY285 4.47 ± 0.49 8.43 ± 0.32c 3.96 ± 0.24 
Plasma concentration (ng/mL)a
AnalytebGroupBaseline9 MonthsChange from baseline
Selenium SeMet 139 ± 7.0 256 ± 14.9c 117 ± 13.2 
 SY285 129 ± 8.7 256 ± 26.9c 128 ± 30.2 
SeMet SeMet <0.12 0.736 ± 0.16c 0.616 ± 0.16 
 SY285 <0.12 0.550 ± 0.07c 0.430 ± 0.07 
Selenite SeMet 2.97 ± 0.22 7.90 ± 0.37c 4.93 ± 0.42 
 SY285 4.47 ± 0.49 8.43 ± 0.32c 3.96 ± 0.24 

aValues are mean ± SE (n = 5).

bSelenate and MSC concentrations were below detection limits (0.12 ng/mL for selenate and 0.16 ng/mL for MSC) in all samples.

cSignificantly different from baseline (P < 0.001).

Biomarkers of oxidative stress

Levels of 8-iso-PGF in urine were measured as a biomarker of lipid peroxidation (Fig. 3A, top). A dose-responsive decrease was observed for the SY groups reaching a maximum decrease of 28% occurring in the SY285 group after 9 months (P < 0.05). Levels returned to baseline after the 3-month washout. No significant changes were observed in the SeMet, SY200, or placebo groups.

Figure 3.

Effect of supplementation with SeMet or SY on urinary biomarkers of oxidative stress in healthy men. Subjects were randomized to placebo (n = 18), 200 μg/day SY (n = 16), 285 μg/day SY (n = 15), or 200 μg/day SeMet (n = 20). Urinary levels of 8-iso-PGF and 8-OHdG were determined by ELISA and corrected for urinary dilution by dividing by urinary creatinine levels, and plasma selenium, determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. A, urinary levels of 8-iso-PGF (top) and 8-OHdG (bottom) by treatment arm. Bars represent mean change in biomarker values from baseline after 9 and 12 months with associated standard error values. Baseline values for 8-iso-PGF were 199 ± 96, 180 ± 87, 217 ± 117, and 206 ± 114 mg/mg creatinine for placebo, SY200, SY285 and SeMet groups, respectively. Baseline values for 8-OHdG were 66.8 ± 22, 72.7 ± 43, 90.1 ± 38, and 70.1 ± 38 mg/mg creatinine for placebo, SY200, SY285 and SeMet groups, respectively. B, association of reductions in oxidative stress biomarker levels by SY with baseline selenium levels in plasma. Urinary levels of 8-iso-PGF and 8-OHdG for subjects in the 285 μg/day SY group were examined by baseline plasma selenium tertile. Mean baseline plasma selenium levels (top) and mean changes in 8-OHdG (middle) and 8-iso-PGF (bottom) from baseline at 9 months are reported by baseline selenium tertile. Bars, mean and SE values. Tertile baseline plasma cutpoints (mg/mL) are 127 and 138. *, Significantly different from baseline, P < 0.05.

Figure 3.

Effect of supplementation with SeMet or SY on urinary biomarkers of oxidative stress in healthy men. Subjects were randomized to placebo (n = 18), 200 μg/day SY (n = 16), 285 μg/day SY (n = 15), or 200 μg/day SeMet (n = 20). Urinary levels of 8-iso-PGF and 8-OHdG were determined by ELISA and corrected for urinary dilution by dividing by urinary creatinine levels, and plasma selenium, determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. A, urinary levels of 8-iso-PGF (top) and 8-OHdG (bottom) by treatment arm. Bars represent mean change in biomarker values from baseline after 9 and 12 months with associated standard error values. Baseline values for 8-iso-PGF were 199 ± 96, 180 ± 87, 217 ± 117, and 206 ± 114 mg/mg creatinine for placebo, SY200, SY285 and SeMet groups, respectively. Baseline values for 8-OHdG were 66.8 ± 22, 72.7 ± 43, 90.1 ± 38, and 70.1 ± 38 mg/mg creatinine for placebo, SY200, SY285 and SeMet groups, respectively. B, association of reductions in oxidative stress biomarker levels by SY with baseline selenium levels in plasma. Urinary levels of 8-iso-PGF and 8-OHdG for subjects in the 285 μg/day SY group were examined by baseline plasma selenium tertile. Mean baseline plasma selenium levels (top) and mean changes in 8-OHdG (middle) and 8-iso-PGF (bottom) from baseline at 9 months are reported by baseline selenium tertile. Bars, mean and SE values. Tertile baseline plasma cutpoints (mg/mL) are 127 and 138. *, Significantly different from baseline, P < 0.05.

Close modal

8-OHdG levels in urine were measured as a biomarker of oxidative damage to DNA (Fig. 3A, bottom). A dose-responsive decrease was observed for the SY groups reaching a maximum decrease of 34% in the SY285 group after 9 months (P < 0.05). Levels returned to baseline after the 3-month washout. No significant changes were observed in the SeMet, SY200, and placebo groups.

The impact of baseline selenium levels on biomarkers of oxidative stress

Mean changes in urinary 8-OHdG and 8-iso-PGF levels at 9 months were compared between baseline selenium tertile groups (Supplementary Table S1). Significant associations were observed in the SY285 group only (Fig. 3B). In the lowest tertile of baseline selenium (mean ± SD: 115 ± 10.3 mg/mL) levels of both biomarkers were significantly reduced. In the middle tertile (136 ± 1.6 ng/mL), a significant reduction was observed for 8-iso-PGF only. No changes were observed in the highest tertile (152 ± 13.1 ng/mL). The largest decreases in both biomarkers were observed for the lowest tertile.

Glutathione and protein glutathionylation

Levels of free and protein-bound GSH were measured in whole blood at baseline and after 9 and 12 months (Table 3). There were no changes in either free or bound levels of GSH in any of the four study groups.

Table 3.

Effect of SY or SeMet on serum PSA and blood glucose and free and bound GSH in healthy men

Change from baseline
GroupBaseline3 mo6 mo9 mo12 mo
 Glucose (mg/dL)a 
 Placebo 84.7 ± 2.29 1.28 ± 2.01 3.06 ± 2.32 3.72 ± 2.76 4.28 ± 1.79 
 SY (200 μg/d) 91.6 ± 1.65 0.12 ± 2.08 2.69 ± 2.62 −1.44 ± 2.75 −1.06 ± 2.70 
 SY (285 μg/d) 82.7 ± 2.45 0.40 ± 1.89 −3.67 ± 2.57 1.60 ± 5.31 1.00 ± 3.09 
 SeMet (200 μg/d) 91.0 ± 2.07 −0.50 ± 0.96 −1.45 ± 1.03 −1.75 ± 2.46 −2.20 ± 2.49 
 PSA (ng/mL)a 
 Placebo 1.03 ± 0.12 0.07 ± 0.03 0.32 ± 0.22 0.37 ± 0.26 0.05 ± 0.06 
 SY (200 μg/d) 1.40 ± 0.29 0.14 ± 0.09 0.22 ± 0.13 0.34 ± 0.30 0.74 ± 0.50 
 SY (285 μg/d) 0.59 ± 0.06 0.05 ± 0.03 0.09 ± 0.04 0.08 ± 0.04 0.06 ± 0.05 
 SeMet (200 μg/d) 1.14 ± 0.16 −0.08 ± 9.09 0.06 ± 0.07 0.02 ± 0.08 0.02 ± 0.07 
 GSH (μmol/mL) 
 Placebo 0.94 ± 0.08 ND ND −0.12 ± 0.08 −0.09 ± 0.09 
 SY (200 μg/d) 0.90 ± 0.07 ND ND −0.05 ± 0.08 −0.01 ± 0.12 
 SY (285 μg/d) 0.94 ± 0.09 ND ND −0.02 ± 0.09 −0.10 ± 0.07 
 SeMet (200 μg/d) 0.99 ± 0.07 ND ND −0.22 ± 0.07b −0.11 ± 0.08 
 Protein bound GSH (% of total GSH) 
 Placebo 17.7 ± 1.85 ND ND −1.37 ± 2.40 −1.14 ± 2.31 
 SY (200 μg/d) 16.5 ± 1.64 ND ND −0.39 ± 1.97 0.54 ± 2.43 
 SY (285 μg/d) 15.7 ± 1.33 ND ND 1.86 ± 2.57 4.17 ± 2.09 
 SeMet (200 μg/d) 16.8 ± 1.61 ND ND 1.25 ± 1.79 −0.51 ± 2.34 
Change from baseline
GroupBaseline3 mo6 mo9 mo12 mo
 Glucose (mg/dL)a 
 Placebo 84.7 ± 2.29 1.28 ± 2.01 3.06 ± 2.32 3.72 ± 2.76 4.28 ± 1.79 
 SY (200 μg/d) 91.6 ± 1.65 0.12 ± 2.08 2.69 ± 2.62 −1.44 ± 2.75 −1.06 ± 2.70 
 SY (285 μg/d) 82.7 ± 2.45 0.40 ± 1.89 −3.67 ± 2.57 1.60 ± 5.31 1.00 ± 3.09 
 SeMet (200 μg/d) 91.0 ± 2.07 −0.50 ± 0.96 −1.45 ± 1.03 −1.75 ± 2.46 −2.20 ± 2.49 
 PSA (ng/mL)a 
 Placebo 1.03 ± 0.12 0.07 ± 0.03 0.32 ± 0.22 0.37 ± 0.26 0.05 ± 0.06 
 SY (200 μg/d) 1.40 ± 0.29 0.14 ± 0.09 0.22 ± 0.13 0.34 ± 0.30 0.74 ± 0.50 
 SY (285 μg/d) 0.59 ± 0.06 0.05 ± 0.03 0.09 ± 0.04 0.08 ± 0.04 0.06 ± 0.05 
 SeMet (200 μg/d) 1.14 ± 0.16 −0.08 ± 9.09 0.06 ± 0.07 0.02 ± 0.08 0.02 ± 0.07 
 GSH (μmol/mL) 
 Placebo 0.94 ± 0.08 ND ND −0.12 ± 0.08 −0.09 ± 0.09 
 SY (200 μg/d) 0.90 ± 0.07 ND ND −0.05 ± 0.08 −0.01 ± 0.12 
 SY (285 μg/d) 0.94 ± 0.09 ND ND −0.02 ± 0.09 −0.10 ± 0.07 
 SeMet (200 μg/d) 0.99 ± 0.07 ND ND −0.22 ± 0.07b −0.11 ± 0.08 
 Protein bound GSH (% of total GSH) 
 Placebo 17.7 ± 1.85 ND ND −1.37 ± 2.40 −1.14 ± 2.31 
 SY (200 μg/d) 16.5 ± 1.64 ND ND −0.39 ± 1.97 0.54 ± 2.43 
 SY (285 μg/d) 15.7 ± 1.33 ND ND 1.86 ± 2.57 4.17 ± 2.09 
 SeMet (200 μg/d) 16.8 ± 1.61 ND ND 1.25 ± 1.79 −0.51 ± 2.34 

NOTE: Subjects were randomized to placebo (n = 18), 200 μg/d SY (n = 16), 285 μg/d SY (n = 15), or 200 μg/d SeMet (n = 20). Values are mean ± SE.

Abbreviation: ND, not determined.

aEligibility criteria: Glucose <106 mg/dL; normal PSA based on age- and race-specific cutoffs (Ref. 15).

bStatistically significant from baseline (P < 0.05).

Glucose and PSA

At baseline, all subjects had normal fasting blood glucose and serum PSA levels; no differences were observed for either glucose or PSA between groups (Table 3). In all groups, glucose and PSA levels were each unchanged during the course of the study.

This is the first clinical trial aimed at comparing the effects of two different forms of selenium on biomarkers that are likely to influence prostate cancer risk in men. In a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in healthy men, we have observed that SY but not SeMet (the formulation used in the largest prostate cancer chemoprevention study; ref. 10; ever conducted) was effective at reducing the levels of oxidative stress as assessed by reductions in biomarkers of lipid peroxidation (8-iso-PGF) and oxidative damage to DNA (8-OHdG), despite inducing similar increases in plasma selenium levels. Although the mechanisms of chemoprevention by selenium remain unclear, enhanced protection against oxidative stress is thought to be involved (23–27). Selenium supplementation in the form of sodium selenite was previously shown to decrease biomarkers of oxidative stress (lymphocyte 8-oxodG and urinary excretion 8-oxoGua) in individuals carrying the BRCA1 mutation (28). This difference in effectiveness of SY versus SeMet in protecting against oxidative stress may, in part, help explain the results of previous trials which demonstrated the effectiveness of SY (NPC; ref. 8), but not SeMet (SELECT; ref. 10), at reducing the risk for prostate cancer. In fact SY was the only form associated with a pattern of decreased DNA damage in rodents (14).

In the present study, we observed that both SeMet and SY increased plasma selenium levels and, for SY, the increases were dose dependent. The increases observed for the SY285 group were comparable with the SeMet group, despite the total dose of selenium being 85 μg/day greater in the SY285 group. Because the dose of SeMet was the same in both the SeMet and SY285 supplements, these results suggest that SeMet is the form of selenium in yeast that is responsible for enhancing plasma total selenium levels. These results are consistent with previous findings which indicate that SeMet-containing proteins (where SeMet is incorporated nonspecifically in place of Met), the most abundant source of selenium in plasma (29–32), are the major source for selenium variation in plasma and that selenoproteins or other forms of selenium (e.g., MSC) account for very little of the variation of selenium in plasma (33–35). Although we were not able to measure the impact of SY or SeMet on prostate selenium status, in a recent clinical study, SY supplementation was associated with a dose-dependent increase in total selenium levels in prostatic tissues that appeared to be greater than that previously observed with SeMet (36). Collectively, these results indicate that the selenium disposition in plasma may differ from that in the target organ (prostate).

Our current finding that the impact of SY on oxidative stress biomarkers was greatest in men with low baseline plasma selenium levels are consistent with a recent report of SY supplementation in healthy men (37) and provides further support for the importance of baseline selenium in predicting the efficacy of supplementation. Epidemiologic investigations have linked low selenium intake and levels with increased risk for prostate cancer (38–40) including the recent prospective study in the Netherlands, where a strong association between toenail selenium levels and advanced prostate cancer was observed in a population with relatively low levels of selenium (6). In the NPC, the greatest protective effects were observed in individuals with low baseline selenium and no beneficial effects were observed in individuals with levels above 122 μg/L (9). This is consistent with the present trial where optimal beneficial effects on oxidative stress biomarkers were observed in individuals in the lowest tertile for baseline plasma selenium (≤127 μg/L). The higher baseline levels of selenium in SELECT participants compared with those in NPC may contribute to the lack of a protective effect of selenium observed in that trial. In a recent reevaluation of SELECT, no association of prostate cancer risk was observed with baseline toenail selenium levels (41). However, the baseline levels of toenail selenium in this trial were on average >60% higher than those in the Netherlands trial such that >80% of the subjects in the Netherlands trial would fall within the lowest quintile of SELECT. Considering the baseline selenium levels observed in these trials, Rayman and colleagues pointed out that the results of NPC are consistent with those of SELECT (42). The lack of a protective effect of SY (200 μg/day) on prostate cancer in high-risk men in the recently completed Negative Biopsy Trial may be due to the late stage of disease when intervention was started but may also reflect the relatively higher baseline levels of plasma selenium observed in this trial compared with NPC (43).

Although SeMet does not seem to be the active chemopreventive agent in SY, it is currently not known which agents may be responsible for this activity. Interest in MSC as one such agent stems from preclinical studies, which show that it is more effective than SeMet at impacting prostate cancer-related pathways in preclinical models (5). We recently identified a number of proteins that are differentially expressed as a result of selenium enrichment of yeast (44), including the selenium-containing protein elongation Factor 2 (45) and others have identified up to 27 selenium containing compounds in SY (46) which may also be playing a role.

A limitation of this study was the relatively small sample size, especially among men with low selenium at baseline, although adequately powered as a randomized phase II study that can support future larger studies. Also, outcome measures did not include prostate cancer development or biomarkers specific for prostate cancer risk. Strengths of the study include the randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled design in healthy men and the use of selenium supplements at doses which mimic previously conducted disease outcome trials and also allow for comparison between different selenium forms.

Overall, our study highlights the differences between the effects of SY and SeMet in preventing oxidative stress and support the continued development of SY but not SeMet as a chemopreventive agent. Because the effects of SY seem to be based on baseline levels of plasma selenium, such a chemopreventive approach may be best served if applied to men with low selenium levels as suggested in a recent study (6).

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Conception and design: J.P. Richie, R. Sinha, A. Baker, M.G. Kaag, K. El-Bayoumy

Development of methodology: J.P. Richie, A. Das, A. Calcagnotto, E.J. Lengerich, M.G. Kaag, R.S. DiPaola, K. El-Bayoumy

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): J.P. Richie, A. Das, A. Calcagnotto, W. Neidig, E.J. Lengerich, T.J. Hartman, A. Ciccarella, A. Baker, M.G. Kaag, S. Goodin, R.S. DiPaola

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): J.P. Richie, A. Das, R. Sinha, J. Liao, E.J. Lengerich, A. Berg, S. Goodin, K. El-Bayoumy

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: J.P. Richie, A. Das, R. Sinha, W. Neidig, J. Liao, E.J. Lengerich, T.J. Hartman, M.G. Kaag, S. Goodin, R.S. DiPaola, K. El-Bayoumy

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): A. Das, A. Calcagnotto, R. Sinha, W. Neidig, A. Ciccarella, A. Baker, K. El-Bayoumy

Study supervision: J.P. Richie, A. Das, R.S. DiPaola, K. El-Bayoumy

The authors thank the staff of the Community Sciences and Health Outcomes Core and Clinical Trials Office of the Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute for assistance in this research, the nursing staff in the Clinical Research Center, Christopher Hamilton in the Core Endocrine Laboratory, Cheryl Reitzel in the Clinical Trials Office for her assistance with Oncore, and Heather Heisey and Alyse Fazzi in the Investigational Drug Service of the Department of Pharmacy, Penn State University College of Medicine, the staff of the Office of Human Research Services at the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and the nursing staff at Clinical Research Center, PSU, for their contribution, and Dr. Telih Boyiri for his assistance with all regulatory aspects of this trial.

This work was supported by a National Cancer Institute grant (R01CA127729; PI: K. El-Bayoumy). Selenium speciation analyses were supported by Cypress Systems, Inc. Additional clinical support was provided by the Penn State Hershey Cancer Institute through its Clinical Trials Office and Community Sciences and Health Outcomes Core and the Office of Human Research Services at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey. Clinical Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01112449.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Siegel
R
,
Naishadham
D
,
Jemal
A
. 
Cancer statistics, 2013
.
CA Cancer J Clin
2013
;
63
:
11
30
.
2.
Syed
DN
,
Khan
N
,
Afaq
F
,
Mukhtar
H
. 
Chemoprevention of prostate cancer through dietary agents: progress and promise
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2007
;
16
:
2193
203
.
3.
Facompre
N
,
El-Bayoumy
K
. 
Potential stages for prostate cancer prevention with selenium: implications for cancer survivors
.
Cancer Res
2009
;
69
:
2699
703
.
4.
El-Bayoumy
K
. 
The protective role of selenium on genetic damage and on cancer
.
Mutat Res
2001
;
475
:
123
39
.
5.
El-Bayoumy
K
,
Sinha
R
. 
Molecular chemoprevention by selenium: a genomic approach
.
Mutat Res
2005
;
591
:
224
36
.
6.
Geybels
MS
,
Verhage
BA
,
van Schooten
FJ
,
Goldbohm
RA
,
van den Brandt
PA
. 
Advanced prostate cancer risk in relation to toenail selenium levels
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2013
;
105
:
1394
401
.
7.
Hurst
R
,
Hooper
L
,
Norat
T
,
Lau
R
,
Aune
D
,
Greenwood
DC
, et al
Selenium and prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Am J Clin Nutr
2012
;
96
:
111
22
.
8.
Clark
LC
,
Combs
GF
 Jr
,
Turnbull
BW
,
Slate
EH
,
Chalker
DK
,
Chow
J
, et al
Effects of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in patients with carcinoma of the skin. A randomized controlled trial. Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Study Group
.
JAMA
1996
;
276
:
1957
63
.
9.
Duffield-Lillico
AJ
,
Dalkin
BL
,
Reid
ME
,
Turnbull
BW
,
Slate
EH
,
Jacobs
ET
, et al
Selenium supplementation, baseline plasma selenium status and incidence of prostate cancer: an analysis of the complete treatment period of the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial
.
BJU Int
2003
;
91
:
608
12
.
10.
Lippman
SM
,
Klein
EA
,
Goodman
PJ
,
Lucia
MS
,
Thompson
IM
,
Ford
LG
, et al
Effect of selenium and vitamin E on risk of prostate cancer and other cancers: the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT)
.
JAMA
2009
;
301
:
39
51
.
11.
Ozten
N
,
Horton
L
,
Lasano
S
,
Bosland
MC
. 
Selenomethionine and alpha-tocopherol do not inhibit prostate carcinogenesis in the testosterone plus estradiol-treated NBL rat model
.
Cancer Prev Res
2010
;
3
:
371
80
.
12.
McCormick
DL
,
Rao
KV
,
Johnson
WD
,
Bosland
MC
,
Lubet
RA
,
Steele
VE
. 
Null activity of selenium and vitamin e as cancer chemopreventive agents in the rat prostate
.
Cancer Prev Res
2010
;
3
:
381
92
.
13.
Waters
DJ
,
Shen
S
,
Kengeri
SS
,
Chiang
EC
,
Combs
GF
 Jr
,
Morris
JS
, et al
Prostatic response to supranutritional selenium supplementation: comparison of the target tissue potency of selenomethionine vs. selenium-yeast on markers of prostatic homeostasis
.
Nutrients
2012
;
4
:
1650
63
.
14.
Barger
JL
,
Kayo
T
,
Pugh
TD
,
Vann
JA
,
Power
R
,
Dawson
K
, et al
Gene expression profiling reveals differential effects of sodium selenite, selenomethionine, and yeast-derived selenium in the mouse
.
Genes Nutr
2012
;
7
:
155
65
.
15.
Greene
KL
,
Albertsen
PC
,
Babaian
RJ
,
Carter
HB
,
Gann
PH
,
Han
M
, et al
Prostate specific antigen best practice statement: 2009 update
.
J Urol
2009
;
182
:
2232
41
.
16.
Larsen
EH
,
Hansen
M
,
Paulin
H
,
Moesgaard
S
,
Reid
M
,
Rayman
M
. 
Speciation and bioavailability of selenium in yeast-based intervention agents used in cancer chemoprevention studies
.
J AOAC Int
2004
;
87
:
225
32
.
17.
El-Bayoumy
K
,
Richie
JP
 Jr
,
Boyiri
T
,
Komninou
D
,
Prokopczyk
B
,
Trushin
N
, et al
Influence of selenium-enriched yeast supplementation on biomarkers of oxidative damage and hormone status in healthy adult males: a clinical pilot study
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2002
;
11
:
1459
65
.
18.
Richie
JP
 Jr
,
Skowronski
L
,
Abraham
P
,
Leutzinger
Y
. 
Blood glutathione concentrations in a large-scale human study
.
Clin Chem
1996
;
42
:
64
70
.
19.
Kleinman
WA
,
Komninou
D
,
Leutzinger
Y
,
Colosimo
S
,
Cox
J
,
Lang
CA
, et al
Protein glutathiolation in human blood
.
Biochem Pharmacol
2003
;
65
:
741
6
.
20.
Fairbanks
VF
,
Klee
GG
. 
Fundamentals of clinical chemistry
.
Philadelphia
:
WB Saunders
; 
1987
.
21.
Slot
C
. 
Plasma creatinine determination. A new and specific Jaffe reaction method
.
Scand J Clin Lab Invest
1965
;
17
:
381
7
.
22.
Welch
BL
. 
The generalisation of student's problems when several different population variances are involved
.
Biometrika
1947
;
34
:
28
35
.
23.
Halliwell
B
. 
Oxidative stress and cancer: have we moved forward?
Biochem J
2007
;
401
:
1
11
.
24.
Brenneisen
P
,
Steinbrenner
H
,
Sies
H
. 
Selenium, oxidative stress, and health aspects
.
Mol Aspects Med
2005
;
26
:
256
67
.
25.
Arbogast
S
,
Ferreiro
A
. 
Selenoproteins and protection against oxidative stress: selenoprotein N as a novel player at the crossroads of redox signaling and calcium homeostasis
.
Antioxid Redox Signal
2010
;
12
:
893
904
.
26.
Klaunig
JE
,
Xu
Y
,
Isenberg
JS
,
Bachowski
S
,
Kolaja
KL
,
Jiang
J
, et al
The role of oxidative stress in chemical carcinogenesis
.
Environ Health Perspect
1998
;
106
Suppl 1
:
289
95
.
27.
Rayman
MP
. 
Selenium in cancer prevention: a review of the evidence and mechanism of action
.
Proc Nutr Soc
2005
;
64
:
527
42
.
28.
Dziaman
T
,
Huzarski
T
,
Gackowski
D
,
Rozalski
R
,
Siomek
A
,
Szpila
A
, et al
Selenium supplementation reduced oxidative DNA damage in adnexectomized BRCA1 mutations carriers
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2009
;
18
:
2923
8
.
29.
Combs
GF
 Jr
,
Hyun
T
,
Gray
WP
. 
Nonprotein bound selenium in plasma: relevance in assessing selenium status
. In:
Centeno
J
,
Collery
P
,
Vernet
G
,
Finkelman
R
,
Gibb
H
,
Eteinne
J
,
editors
. 
Metal Ions in Biology and Medicine
.
Montrouge, France
:
John Libbey Eurotext Ltd
.; 
2000
.
p.
237
40
.
30.
Burk
RF
,
Hill
KE
,
Motley
AK
. 
Plasma selenium in specific and non-specific forms
.
Biofactors
2001
;
14
:
107
14
.
31.
Ogra
Y
,
Kitaguchi
T
,
Suzuki
N
,
Suzuki
KT
. 
In vitro translation with [34S]-labeled methionine, selenomethionine, and telluromethionine
.
Anal Bioanal Chem
2008
;
390
:
45
51
.
32.
Butler
JA
,
Beilstein
MA
,
Whanger
PD
. 
Influence of dietary methionine on the metabolism of selenomethionine in rats
.
J Nutr
1989
;
119
:
1001
9
.
33.
Combs
GF
 Jr
,
Watts
JC
,
Jackson
MI
,
Johnson
LK
,
Zeng
H
,
Scheett
AJ
, et al
Determinants of selenium status in healthy adults
.
Nutr J
2011
;
10
:
75
.
34.
Burk
RF
,
Norsworthy
BK
,
Hill
KE
,
Motley
AK
,
Byrne
DW
. 
Effects of chemical form of selenium on plasma biomarkers in a high-dose human supplementation trial
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2006
;
15
:
804
10
.
35.
Marshall
JR
,
Ip
C
,
Romano
K
,
Fetterly
G
,
Fakih
M
,
Jovanovic
B
, et al
Methyl selenocysteine: single-dose pharmacokinetics in men
.
Cancer Prev Res
2011
;
4
:
1938
44
.
36.
Algotar
AM
,
Stratton
MS
,
Xu
MJ
,
Dalkin
BL
,
Nagle
RB
,
Hsu
CH
, et al
Dose-dependent effects of selenized yeast on total selenium levels in prostatic tissue of men with prostate cancer
.
Nutr Cancer
2011
;
63
:
1
5
.
37.
Karunasinghe
N
,
Han
DY
,
Zhu
S
,
Duan
H
,
Ko
YJ
,
Yu
JF
, et al
Effects of supplementation with selenium, as selenized yeast, in a healthy male population from New Zealand
.
Nutr Cancer
2013
;
65
:
355
66
.
38.
Vogt
TM
,
Ziegler
RG
,
Graubard
BI
,
Swanson
CA
,
Greenberg
RS
,
Schoenberg
JB
, et al
Serum selenium and risk of prostate cancer in U.S. blacks and whites
.
Int J Cancer
2003
;
103
:
664
70
.
39.
Schrauzer
GN
,
White
DA
,
Schneider
CJ
. 
Cancer mortality correlation studies–III: statistical associations with dietary selenium intakes
.
Bioinorg Chem
1977
;
7
:
23
31
.
40.
Brinkman
M
,
Reulen
RC
,
Kellen
E
,
Buntinx
F
,
Zeegers
MP
. 
Are men with low selenium levels at increased risk of prostate cancer?
Eur J Cancer
2006
;
42
:
2463
71
.
41.
Kristal
AR
,
Darke
AK
,
Morris
JS
,
Tangen
CM
,
Goodman
PJ
,
Thompson
IM
, et al
Baseline selenium status and effects of selenium and vitamin E supplementation on prostate cancer risk
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2014
;
106
:
djt456
.
42.
Rayman
MP
,
Combs
GF
 Jr
,
Waters
DJ
. 
Selenium and vitamin E supplementation for cancer prevention
.
JAMA
2009
;
301
:
1876
.
43.
Algotar
AM
,
Stratton
MS
,
Ahmann
FR
,
Ranger-Moore
J
,
Nagle
RB
,
Thompson
PA
, et al
Phase 3 clinical trial investigating the effect of selenium supplementation in men at high-risk for prostate cancer
.
Prostate
2013
;
73
:
328
35
.
44.
El-Bayoumy
K
,
Das
A
,
Russell
S
,
Wolfe
S
,
Jordan
R
,
Renganathan
K
, et al
The effect of selenium enrichment on baker's yeast proteome
.
J Proteomics
2012
;
75
:
1018
30
.
45.
Tastet
L
,
Schaumloffel
D
,
Lobinski
R
. 
ICP-MS-assisted proteomics approach to the identification of selenium-containing proteins in selenium-rich yeast
.
J Anal Atom Spectrom
2008
;
23
:
309
17
.
46.
Casal
SG
,
Far
J
,
Bierla
K
,
Ouerdane
L
,
Szpunar
J
. 
Study of the Se-containing metabolomes in Se-rich yeast by size-exclusion-cation-exchange HPLC with the parallel ICP MS and electrospray orbital ion trap detection
.
Metallomics
2010
;
2
:
535
48
.