4.5 Article

Evaluating the levels of CSF and serum factors in ALS

Journal

BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.637

Keywords

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; chemokines; cytokines; growth factors

Funding

  1. Tianjin Health Bureau [2015KZ022, 2015KZ035]
  2. Tianjin Health Bureau

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify CSF and serum factors as biomarkers that may aid in distinguishing ALS patients from control subjects and predicting ALS progression as well as prognosis. Methods: Serum and CSF samples from 105 patients with ALS and 56 control subjects were analyzed for 13 factors using ELISA. The revised ALS functional rating scale (ALSFRS-r) was used to evaluate the overall functional status of ALS patients, and we also followed up with ALS patients either by phone or with clinic visits for five years after enrollment in this study. Finally, we examined the correlations between factor levels and various clinical parameters and evaluated the predictive value for prognosis through a multivariate statistic model. Results: A total of eight factors were obviously elevated in CSF, and twelve markers were increased in serum. In the correlation analyses, there were trends toward higher bFGF, VEGF, MIP-1 levels in ALS with a longer disease duration and slower disease progression in both CSF and serum. Higher MCP-1 levels were associated with worse disease severity and faster progression, and the IFN- levels were positively associated with disease progression in either CSF or serum. Finally, a better prognosis was observed with higher levels bFGF in CSF and VEGF in CSF and serum; conversely, patients with higher levels of IFN- in the CSF had shorter overall survival. Conclusions: We demonstrated that a factor profile of ALS patients is distinct from control subjects and may be useful in clinical practice and therapeutic trials.

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