4.7 Article

Telomere length and progression of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 1 diabetes

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 267, 期 3, 页码 278-286

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2009.02139.x

关键词

diabetic nephropathy; microalbuminuria; telomeres; type 1 diabetes

资金

  1. Folkhalsan Research Foundation
  2. Wilhelm and Else Stockmann Foundation
  3. Sigrid Juselius Foundation
  4. Liv och Halsa Foundation, Helsinki, Finland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. To determine whether short telomere length of blood leucocytes from patients with type 1 diabetes is associated with or predictive of progression of diabetic nephropathy. Design and methods. Two consecutive DNA samples were obtained from 132 patients from the nationwide Finnish Diabetic Nephropathy Study with type 1 diabetes. Control DNA samples were taken from 44 healthy blood donors. Telomere length was measured by Southern blot. Patients were divided into three groups according to their urinary albumin excretion rate (AER): 48 patients with normoalbuminuria (AER < 20 mu g min(-1)); seven patients with microalbuminuria (AER >= 20 mu g min(-1) < 200 mu g min(-1)) and 77 patients with macroalbuminuria (AER >= 200 mu g min(-1)). Progression was defined as a change in albuminuria to a higher level. Results. Progression occurred in 21 patients. Progressors had shorter mean telomere length (8.1 +/- 0.7 kb, mean +/- SD; P = 0.017) and higher percentage of short telomeres (32.0 +/- 8%, P = 0.002) than nonprogressors (8.5 +/- 0.7 kb and 27 +/- 7.2%, respectively). Thus, both shorter telomeres (HR = 0.190, 95%CI 0.065-0.558, P = 0.0025) and higher proportion of short telomeres (HR = 1.115, 1.039-1.195, P =0.0023) were independent predictors of diabetic nephropathy. Telomere length was not associated with the degree of albuminuria and was not different in patients with type 1 diabetes compared with healthy controls. Conclusions. Short telomeres are independent predictors of progression of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 1 diabetes.

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

4.7
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