4.5 Article

Role of beta-defensin 2 and interleukin-4 receptor as stroke outcome biomarkers

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROCHEMISTRY
卷 129, 期 3, 页码 463-472

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jnc.12649

关键词

biomarkers; cerebral ischemia; immune response; outcome; prognosis; stroke

资金

  1. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [FI09/00017]
  2. Vall d'Hebron Institute of Research
  3. FIS [11/0176]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute ischemic stroke is a complex disease with huge interindividual evolution variability that makes challenging the prediction of an adverse outcome. Our aim was to study the association of bloodstream signatures to early neurological outcome after stroke, by combining a subpooling of samples strategy with protein array discovery approach. Plasma samples from 36 acute stroke patients (< 4.5h from onset) were equally pooled within outcome groups: worsening, stability, and improvement (n = 3 pools of four patients each, for each outcome group). These nine pools were screened using a 177 antibodies library, and 35 proteins were found altered regarding outcome classification (p < 0.1). Processes of inflammation, immune response, coagulation, and apoptosis were regulated by these proteins. Ten representative candidates, mainly cytokines and chemokines, were assayed for replication in individual baseline plasma samples from 80 new stroke patients: beta-defensin2, MIP-3b, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 active, beta-cell-attracting chemokine 1, Exodus-2, interleukin-4 receptor (IL-4R), IL-12p40, leukemia inhibitor factor, MIP-1b, and tumor necrosis factor-related weak inducer of apoptosis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed beta-defensin 2 (ORadj 4.87 [1.13-20.91] p = 0.033) and IL-4R (ORadj 3.52 [1.03-12.08] p = 0.045) as independent predictors of worsening at 24h after adjustment by clinical variables. Both biomarkers improve the prediction by 19% as compared to clinical information, suggesting a potential role for risk stratification in acute thrombolyzed stroke patients.

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