4.6 Article

TDP-43 Cytoplasmic Translocation in the Skin Fibroblasts of ALS Patients

期刊

CELLS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells11020209

关键词

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; dermis; skin biopsy; TDP-43; biomarker

资金

  1. Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades of Spain [RTI2018-096386-B-I00]
  2. Agencia Espanola de Investigacion of Spain [RTI2018-096386-B-I00]
  3. Instituto de Salud Carlos III of Spain [CB06/05/1105, RD16/0011/0014]
  4. European Union (ERDF/ESF, Investing in your future)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found increased levels of TDP-43 in the skin of ALS patients, which may serve as a potential biomarker for early diagnosis of ALS.
Diagnosis of ALS is based on clinical symptoms when motoneuron degeneration is significant. Therefore, new approaches for early diagnosis are needed. We aimed to assess if alterations in appearance and cellular localization of cutaneous TDP-43 may represent a biomarker for ALS. Skin biopsies from 64 subjects were analyzed: 44 ALS patients, 10 healthy controls (HC) and 10 neurological controls (NC) (Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis). TDP-43 immunoreactivity in epidermis and dermis was analyzed, as well as the percentage of cells with TDP-43 cytoplasmic localization. We detected a higher amount of TDP-43 in epidermis (p < 0.001) and in both layers of dermis (p < 0.001), as well as a higher percentage of TDP-43 cytoplasmic positive cells (p < 0.001) in the ALS group compared to HC and NC groups. Dermal cells containing TDP-43 were fibroblasts as identified by co-labeling against vimentin. ROC analyses (AUC 0.867, p < 0.001; CI 95% 0.800-0.935) showed that detection of 24.1% cells with cytoplasmic TDP-43 positivity in the dermis had 85% sensitivity and 80% specificity for detecting ALS. We have identified significantly increased TDP-43 levels in epidermis and in the cytoplasm of dermal cells of ALS patients. Our findings provide support for the use of TDP-43 in skin biopsies as a potential biomarker.

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