4.6 Article

Circulating TNF Receptors 1 and 2 Are Associated with the Severity of Renal Interstitial Fibrosis in IgA Nephropathy

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122212

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current study aimed to examine whether the levels of TNF receptors 1 and 2 (TNFR1 and TNFR2) in serum and urine were associated with other markers of kidney injury and renal histological findings, including TNFR expression, in IgA nephropathy (IgAN). The levels of the parameters of interest were measured by immunoassay in 106 biopsy-proven IgAN patients using samples obtained immediately before renal biopsy and in 34 healthy subjects. Renal histological findings were evaluated using immunohistochemistry. The levels of serum TNFRs were higher in IgAN patients than in healthy subjects. The levels of both TNFRs in serum or urine were strongly correlated with each other (r > 0.9). Serum TNFR levels were positively correlated with the urinary protein to creatinine ratio (UPCR) and four markers of tubular damage of interest (N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase [NAG], beta 2 microglobulin [beta 2m], liver-type fatty acid-binding protein [L-FABP], and kidney injury molecule-1 [KIM-1]) and negatively correlated with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Patients in the highest tertile of serum TNFR levels showed more severe renal interstitial fibrosis than did those in the lowest or second tertiles. The tubulointerstitial TNFR2-, but not TNFR1-, positive area was significantly correlated with the serum levels of TNFRs and eGFR. Stepwise multiple regression analysis revealed that elevated serum TNFR1 or TNFR2 levels were a significant determinant of renal interstitial fibrosis after adjusting for eGFR, UPCR, and other markers of tubular damage. In conclusion, elevated serum TNFR levels were significantly associated with the severity of renal interstitial fibrosis in IgAN patients. However, the source of TNFRs in serum and urine remains unclear.

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