4.7 Article

Serum chitotriosidase activity is increased in subjects with atherosclerosis disease

Journal

ARTERIOSCLEROSIS THROMBOSIS AND VASCULAR BIOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 9, Pages 1645-1652

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000089329.09061.07

Keywords

chitotriosidase; macrophage; atherothrombotic stroke; ischemic heart disease; atherosclerosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective-This study was undertaken to analyze the relation between serum activity of chitotriosidase enzyme, a protein synthesized exclusively by activated macrophages, and atherosclerotic lesion extent in subjects with atherothrombotic stroke (ATS) and in subjects with ischemic heart disease (IHD). Methods and Results-We assayed the serum chitotriosidase activity and a common chitotriosidase gene polymorphism that causes deficiency in chitotriosidase activity in 3 Spanish populations, ATS (n=153), IHD (n=124), and control (n=148) subjects. Statistical differences were found in serum chitotriosidase activity between ATS (88.1+/-4.6 nmol/mL.h, P<0.0001) and IHD subjects (79.0 +/- 6.3, P=0.002) versus control group (70.9 +/- 5.2). These observed differences were not attributable to a distinct allelic or genotype distribution. The extension of the atherosclerotic lesion in carotids of ATS subjects was measured by duplex sonography. Chitotriosidase activities were 66.9 +/- 9.6, 88.7 +/- 8.3, and 107.7 +/- 11.8 for subjects with carotid stenosis <= 30%, 31% to 60%, and >60%, respectively. Statistical differences were observed between subjects with major and intermediate stenosis grade compared with subjects with minor stenosis, P=0.005 and P=0.016, respectively. Conclusions-Serum chitotriosidase activity is significantly increased in individuals suffering from atherosclerosis disease and is related to the severity of the atherosclerotic lesion, suggesting a possible role as atherosclerotic extent marker.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available