4.5 Article

Patterns of levels of biological metals in CSF differ among neurodegenerative diseases

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 303, 期 1-2, 页码 95-99

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2011.01.003

关键词

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; Alzheimer's disease; Parkinson's disease; Copper; Zinc; Cerebrospinal fluid; Neurodegenerative disease; ICP-MS

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [19390151]
  2. Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Welfare Foundation, Japan
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [19390151] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We measured the levels of some biological metals: copper (Cu), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn) in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in patients with neurodegenerative diseases (52 patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)), 21 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), and 20 patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). The diagnoses were additionally supported by neuroimaging techniques for AD and PD. In ALS, the levels of Mg (p < 0.01 significant difference), Fe, Cu (p < 0.05), and Zn (p < 0.10) in CSF were higher than those in controls. Some patients showed very high levels of Cu and Zn before the critical deterioration of the disease. In AD, the levels of Cu and Zn in CSF were significantly higher in patients with late-onset AD (p < 0.01). in PD, we found significantly increased levels of especially Cu and Zn in particular (p < 0.01) and Mn (p < 0.05) in CSF. A multiple comparison test suggested that the increased level of Mg in ALS and that of Mn in PD were the pathognomonic features. These findings suggest that Cu and Zn in particular play important roles in the onset and/or progression of ALS, AD, and PD. Therefore, Cu-chelating agents and modulators of Cu and Zn such as metallothionein (MT) can be new candidates for the treatment of ALS, AD, and PD. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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