4.3 Article

Cerebrospinal fluid brain specific proteins in relation to nitric oxide metabolites during relapse of multiple sclerosis

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 59-66

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458507082061

关键词

cerebrospinal fluid; ferritin; multiple sclerosis; neurofilament; nitric oxide; NOx; S100B

资金

  1. Multiple Sclerosis Society [835] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of ferritin, S100B as biomarkers for glial activation and NfH(SM135) -a biomarker of axonal damage -in relation to nitric oxide (NO) metabolites: nitrate and nitrite (NOx) during acute multiple sclerosis (MS) relapse. Thirty-four relapsing -remitting MS (RR-MS) patients during acute relapse and 12 controls were enrolled. Patients were assessed on Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and underwent lumbar puncture within two weeks following relapse. Twenty patients were available for further follow-up and were assessed on EDSS 6 -8 weeks since the relapse onset. The CSF NOx (P < 0.0001), NfH(SM135) (P = 0.01) and S100B (P = 0.009) but not ferritin (P > 0.05) were significantly raised in MS group. There was a significant correlation between CSF ferritin and S100B in RR-MS group (P = 0.004). CSF NOx did not correlate with S100B and ferritin in study groups. RR-MS patients with detectable NfHSM135 levels had higher NOx compared with subjects having undetectable NfH(SM135) (P = 0.03). In the follow-up study, raised baseline levels of NOx (P = 0.016) or NfH(SM135) (P = 0.04) inversely correlated with the clinical recovery grade expressed as relative EDSS change between baseline and follow-up. In conclusion, NO metabolites were increased and because of their correlation with a biomarker of axonal degeneration (neurofilaments) and a measure for clinical disability (EDSS), relapse-related nitrosative stress is likely to be relevant to the development of sustained disability in an individual patient.

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

4.3
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