4.6 Article

Metabolomic analysis of human plasma from haemodialysis patients

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
Volume 41, Issue 3, Pages 241-255

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2010.02398.x

Keywords

Biomarkers; haemodialysis; LC-MS; MS; uraemic toxin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Background Urea and creatinine are widely used as biomarkers for disease. However, these parameters have been criticized as markers for several reasons. Thus, we conducted this study to identify novel biomarkers that can be used as alternatives to urea and creatinine to estimate the adequate dialysis dose by metabolomic analyses of plasma samples from patients undergoing haemodialysis. Material and methods Liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization (ESI)-time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MS) was used to analyse low molecular weight molecules present in the plasma samples of 10 patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who were being treated with haemodialysis, and in 16 healthy subjects. Results In plasma samples obtained after haemodialysis, the relative quantities of 54 peaks were significantly (P < 0 center dot 05) decreased when compared with those in the plasma before haemodialysis. The candidate biomarkers were allocated to three groups. Molecules in Group A improved completely with a large variance, molecules in Group B improved partially but with a large variance, and molecules in Group C improved partially with low variance after haemodialysis. Small cohort validation study consisting of the patients with ESRD undergoing haemodialysis indicates that three candidate biomarkers in Group C would be a very useful marker to estimate adequate haemodialysis dose. Conclusions 1-Methylinosine and two unknown molecules whose m/z at ESI-positive mode are 257 center dot 1033 and 413 center dot 1359 were found as effective candidate biomarkers to estimate adequate haemodialysis dose, which has to be confirmed in prospective studies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available