4.5 Article

Identification and validation of six proteins as marker for endemic nephropathy

Journal

JOURNAL OF PROTEOMICS
Volume 74, Issue 10, Pages 1994-2007

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2011.05.020

Keywords

Endemic nephropathy; Urine proteomics; Biomarker; CKD; 2-D DICE

Funding

  1. UNESCO/L'oreal [ERC/RPO/PPF/CDC/10.48]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technological Development of Serbia [175092]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Endemic nephropathy (EN) is defined as a slow progressive renal tubulointestitial disease that mainly occurs in the restricted areas of the Balkan Peninsula. The complexity of the pathogenesis of EN makes its earlier diagnosis very difficult. Urine samples from healthy volunteers from EN regions, EN patients with proteinuria less than 150 mg/L and EN patients with proteinuria more than 150 mg/L, patients with acute kidney injury, patients with diabetic nephropathy and healthy volunteers from Germany were collected. The urinary proteome analyses were performed using 2-D DICE and mass spectrometry. The validation of biomarkers was investigated by two approaches (Western blot (WB) and dot blot) in successively increasing size - and partially overlapping - sample sets. Comparative and statistical analyses of the proteomics data from the different patient groups allowed the identification of six proteins (alpha-l-microglobulin, alpha-2-glycoprotein-1, beta-2-microglobulin, mannose-binding-lectin-2, protection-of-telomeresprotein-1, and superoxide-dismutase [Cu-Zn]), which were able to discriminate EN with low and high proteinuria from the other groups with high significance (p < 0.05). The reliability of the identified proteins as EN marker was underlined with high statistical significance using WB analyses (sensitivity 66.7-98% and specificity 70-100%), whereas the dot blot analyses revealed a decrease in the sensitivity and specificity of these biomarkers. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available