4.7 Article

Tumor Necrosis Factor-Like Weak Inducer of Apoptosis and Selected Cytokines-Potential Biomarkers in Children with Solitary Functioning Kidney

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10030497

关键词

chronic kidney disease; cytokines; solitary functioning kidney; tumor necrosis factor-like weak inducer of apoptosis

资金

  1. MedicalUniversity of Bialystok, Poland [SUB/1/DN/18/006/1141]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study indicates that TWEAK and RANTES may serve as potential markers of renal impairment in children with solitary functioning kidney.
This study was performed to explore serum tumor necrosis factor-like weak inducer of apoptosis (TWEAK) and its dependent cytokines urinary excretion: monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) and regulated on activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted chemokine (RANTES) with their relation to the kidney function parameters in children with solitary functioning kidney (SFK). The study included 80 children and adolescents (median age 9.75 year) with congenital and acquired (after surgical removal) SFK. Serum TWEAK and urinary MCP-1 and RANTES levels were significantly higher in SFK patients (p < 0.05). The serum TWEAK was positively related to serum creatinine (r = 0.356; p < 0.001). Moreover, in SFK the receiver operating characteristic analyses revealed good diagnostic profile for serum TWEAK with AUC (Area Under The Curve)-0.853, uRANTES-0.757, and for RANTES/cr.: AUC-0.816. Analysis carried out to identify children with impaired renal function (albuminuria and/or decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate < 90 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and/or hypertension) showed good profile for TWEAK (AUC-0.79) and quite good profile for uRANTES and RANTES/cr. (AUC 0.66 and 0.631, respectively). This is the first study investigating serum TWEAK and urinary excretion of MCP-1 and RANTES together in children with SFK. Obtained results indicate that TWEAK and RANTES may serve as potential markers of renal impairment.

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

4.7
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