4.6 Article

Chinese Bone Turnover Marker Study: Reference Ranges for C-Terminal Telopeptide of Type I Collagen and Procollagen I N-Terminal Peptide by Age and Gender

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103841

关键词

-

资金

  1. national natural science foundation of China [81100623]
  2. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [7121012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Bone formation marker procollagen I N-terminal peptide (PINP) and resorption marker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (beta-CTX) are useful biomarkers for differential diagnosis and therapeutic evaluation of osteoporosis, but reference values are required. Methods: The multi-center, cross-sectional Chinese Bone Turnover Marker Study included 3800 healthy volunteers in 5 Chinese cities. Serum PINP, beta-CTX, parathyroid hormone (PTH) and 25OHD levels were measured by chemiluminescence assay. Lumbar spine and proximal femur BMD were measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Serum PINP and beta-CTX levels were assessed by age, gender, weight, recruitment latitude, levels of PTH and 25OHD. Results: Subjects (n = 1436, M:F, 500:936; mean age 50.6 +/- 19.6 years) exhibited non-normally distributed PINP and beta-CTX peaking between 15-19 years, gradually declining throughout adulthood, elevating within 10 years of postmenopause, and then declining by age 70. In women between the age of 30 and menopause, median PINP and beta-CTX levels were 40.42 (95% CI: 17.10-102.15) and 0.26 (95% CI: 0.08-0.72) ng/mL, respectively. beta-CTX and PINP were positively linearly correlated (r = 0.599, P < 0.001). beta-CTX correlated positively (r = 0.054 and 0.093) and PINP correlated negatively (r = -0.012 and -0.053) with 25OHD and PTH (P < 0.05). Conclusions: We established Chinese reference ranges for PINP and CTX. Chinese individuals exhibited high serum PINP and beta-CTX levels between 15 and 19 years of age and at menopause, which gradually declined after 70 years of age.

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

4.6
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