4.2 Article

High mobility group box 1 and angiogenetic growth factor levels in children with central nerve system infections

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 840-844

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2021.01.019

关键词

HMGB1; VEGF; PDGF; Encephalopathy; Pediatrics

资金

  1. [20K17909]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found significantly elevated levels of HMGB1 and angiogenesis-related growth factors in children with acute encephalopathy and meningitis, which correlated with levels of interleukins in cerebrospinal fluid. These factors may play pivotal roles in the pathophysiology of central nervous system infections.
Introduction: To clarify the pathology of children with acute encephalopathy and other neurological disorders, the involvement of high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), which is a representative of danger associated molecular patterns, and angiogenesis-related growth factors were investigated. Patients and methods: Participants were 12 children with acute encephalopathy (influenza, rotavirus, and others), 7 with bacterial meningitis, and 6 with epilepsy disease (West syndrome). Twenty-four patients with non-central nervous system (CNS) infections as a control group were admitted to our hospital. We examined the levels of HMGB1, platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and other cytokines in the serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of the subjects. Results: Serum and CSF HMGB1 levels were significantly higher in the encephalopathy and meningitis groups than in the West syndrome and control groups. CSF HMGB1 levels correlated with those of interleukin-6 and-8. CSF HMGB1 and VEGF levels were correlated, and PDGF showed a positive relationship. Conclusion: HMGB1 and angiogenesis-related growth factors appear to play pivotal roles in the pathophysiology of CNS infections. (c) 2021 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.2
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