4.2 Article

GDF11 is increased in patients with aplastic anemia

Journal

HEMATOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 331-336

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/16078454.2019.1574386

Keywords

Aplastic anemia; growth differentiation factor 11; erythropoiesis

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81170472, 81400088, 81400085, 81570111, 81770118, 81700117]
  2. Application Bases and Advanced Technology Research Program of Tianjin [14JCYBJC27200, 09JCYBJC11200]
  3. Project of Tianjin Municipal Education Commission [20140118]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Object: To explore the critical role of growth differentiation factor 11 (GDF11) in the pathobiology of aplastic anemia (AA). Methods: We have examined the serum GDF11 levels for 79 AA patients and 30 healthy controls. A total of 79 AA patients, which included 29 new diagnosed (untreated) cases, 14 cases with no response, 21 partial remission (PR) cases and 15 complete remission (CR) cases after immunosuppressive therapy (IST). GDF11 serum levels were assessed by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. GDF11 mRNA expression in peripheral blood mononuclear (PBMNC) was detected through real time polymerase chain reaction. The correlation between GDF11 expression and erythropoietic function was evaluated. Results: The serum GDF11 levels in untreated AA patients were higher than that of the control group. The serum GDF11 levels of PR patients or CR patients after IST was decreased, compared with untreated patients, but did not recover back to the normal levels. GDF11 levels had a negative correlation with hemoglobin (Hb) levels and reticulocyte counts in AA patients. GDF11 levels did not correlate with age, sex and severity of in AA patients. Conclusion: Serum GDF11 levels were increased and negatively correlated with Hb levels and reticulocyte counts in AA patients. This suggests an impaired GDF11 response contributing to anemia in AA patients.

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