4.5 Article

A novel, highly sensitive and specific biomarker for Niemann-Pick type C1 disease

期刊

ORPHANET JOURNAL OF RARE DISEASES
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-015-0274-1

关键词

Niemann-Pick type C1 disease; NPC1; Biomarker; HPLC-MS/MS

资金

  1. UK Department of Health's NIH Research Biomedical Research Funding Centres funding scheme
  2. Action Medical Research
  3. Actelion
  4. intramural research program of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs), are a heterogeneous group of rare disorders caused by defects in genes encoding for proteins involved in the lysosomal degradation of macromolecules. They occur at a frequency of about 1 in 5,000 live births, though recent neonatal screening suggests a higher incidence. New treatment options for LSDs demand a rapid, early diagnosis of LSDs if maximal clinical benefit is to be achieved. Methods: Here, we describe a novel, highly specific and sensitive biomarker for Niemann-Pick Type C disease type 1 (NPC1), lyso-sphingomyelin-509. We cross-validate this biomarker with cholestane-3 beta,5 alpha,6 beta-triol and relative lysosomal volume. The primary cohort for establishment of the biomarker contained 135 NPC1 patients, 66 NPC1 carriers, 241 patients with other LSDs and 46 healthy controls. Results: With a sensitivity of 100.0% and specificity of 91.0% a cut-off of 1.4 ng/ml was established. Comparison with cholestane-3 beta,5 alpha,6 beta-triol and relative acidic compartment volume measurements were carried out with a subset of 125 subjects. Both cholestane-3 beta,5 alpha,6 beta-triol and lyso-Sphingomyelin-509 were sufficient in establishing the diagnosis of NPC1 and correlated with disease severity. Conclusion: In summary, we have established a new biomarker for the diagnosis of NPC1, and further studies will be conducted to assess correlation to disease progress and monitoring treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据