4.7 Article

CE-MS-Based Identification of Uremic Solutes Specific to Hemodialysis Patients

期刊

TOXINS
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/toxins13050324

关键词

uremic solutes; hemodialysis; chronic kidney disease; CE-MS

资金

  1. Japanese Association of Dialysis Physicians (JADP) [2013-13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Uremic toxins are suggested to play a role in the pathophysiology of hemodialysis (HD) patients. A comprehensive analysis using capillary electrophoresis mass spectrometry (CE-MS) identified specific uremic solutes that accumulate or are lost in HD patients compared to non-HD chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. These findings suggest a unique profile of serum uremic solutes in HD patients that may contribute to their pathophysiology.
Uremic toxins are suggested to be involved in the pathophysiology of hemodialysis (HD) patients. However, the profile of uremic solutes in HD patients has not been fully elucidated. In this study using capillary electrophoresis mass spectrometry (CE-MS), we comprehensively quantified the serum concentrations of 122 ionic solutes before and after HD in 11 patients. In addition, we compared the results with those in non-HD patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) to identify HD patient-specific solutes. We identified 38 solutes whose concentrations were higher in pre-HD than in CKD stage G5. Ten solutes among them did not significantly accumulate in non-HD CKD patients, suggesting that these solutes accumulate specifically in HD patients. We also identified 23 solutes whose concentrations were lower in both pre- and post-HD than in CKD stage G5. The serum levels of 14 solutes among them were not affected by renal function in non-HD patients, suggesting that these solutes tend to be lost specifically in HD patients. Our data demonstrate that HD patients have a markedly different profile of serum uremic solute levels compared to that in non-HD CKD patients. The solutes identified in our study may contribute to the pathophysiology of HD patients.

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