4.2 Article

Serum biomarker panel for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis

Journal

ARTHRITIS RESEARCH & THERAPY
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13075-020-02405-7

Keywords

Rheumatoid arthritis; Angiotensinogen; Biomarkers; Serum amyloid A-4 protein; Retinol-binding protein-4; Vitamin D-binding protein

Categories

Funding

  1. Bio & Medical Technology Development Program of the NRF - Korean government, MSIP [2016M3A9B694241]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study identified four potential biomarkers for rheumatoid arthritis using LC-MS/MS, which can help improve the accuracy of diagnosis, including in patients without serological antibodies.
Background Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease of inflammatory joint damage, wherein C-reactive protein and autoantibodies including rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) are rapidly elevated. These serological factors are diagnostic markers of RA; however, their sensitivity and specificity for prediction warrant improvement for an early and accurate diagnosis. Methods We aimed to identify alternative biomarkers by serum protein profiling using LC-MS/MS. We performed statistical and functional analysis of differentially expressed proteins to identify biomarker candidates complementing conventional serological tests. Results Seven biomarker candidates were verified through multiple reaction monitoring-based quantitative analysis, of which angiotensinogen (AGT), serum amyloid A-4 protein (SAA4), vitamin D-binding protein (VDBP), and retinol-binding protein-4 (RBP4) had an area under the curve over 0.8, thus distinguishing RA patients, including seronegative (RF- and anti-CCP-negative) RA patients, from healthy controls. Conclusions Therefore, among seronegative RA patients, a four-biomarker panel (AGT, SAA4, VDBP, and RBP4) can prevent false negatives and help diagnose RA accurately.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available