4.5 Article

Urinary netrin-1 concentration in healthy full-term newborns

期刊

ARCHIVES OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 47-52

出版社

TERMEDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE LTD
DOI: 10.5114/aoms/89591

关键词

healthy; netrin-1; newborn; normal ranges

资金

  1. Medical University of Bialystok

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to determine the normal concentrations of urinary netrin-1 in healthy full-term newborns, finding that it is independent of gender and time of urine collection, but negatively correlated with birth weight. Future research is needed to confirm its potential role as a marker of kidney function in this age group.
Introduction: Monitoring of renal function in acute kidney injury in the pediatric population is complicated by the lack of age-related reference values of new biomarkers. Urinary netrin-1 is a new marker to demonstrate early kidney damage. Netrin-1 has a molecular mass of 72 kDa. It is therefore unlikely that it is filtered by the glomerulus under normal conditions. However, netrin-1 is highly induced after acute and chronic kidney injury and excreted in urine in humans. The aim of the study was to determine the normal concentrations of urinary netrin-1 in healthy full-term newborns. Material and methods: The study included 88 healthy full-term neonates (51 boys and 37 girls) born from normal, uncomplicated pregnancies. The concentration of netrin-1 was determined in urine obtained on the first or second day of life with a commercially available ELISA kit. Results: The urinary concentration of netrin-1 in newborns was independent of gender and time of urine collection. We found a negative correlation between both the urinary netrin-1 concentration and urinary netrin-1 concentration after normalization for urinary creatinine and the birth weight. Conclusions: This is the first study showing the urinary netrin-1 concentration in healthy full-term newborns. Future investigation is needed to confirm its potential role as a marker of kidney function in this age group.

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