4.7 Article

Plasma Lipidomics Investigation of Hemodialysis Effects by Using Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 1986-1994

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00170

关键词

Chronic kidney disease; lipidomics; hemodialysis; liquid chromatography-flight mass spectrometry; plasma lipids

资金

  1. key foundation from the National Natural Science Foundation of China [21435006]
  2. creative research group project from the National Natural Science Foundation of China [21321064]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has been a global health problem that has a great possibility of being developed into uremia in the end. Hemodialysis (HD) is the most commonly used strategy for treating uremic patients; however, the patients still have a high risk of suffering various complications. It is well recognized that lipid disorder usually occurs in maintenance HD patients. To systemically study the effects of HD on lipid metabolism associated with uremia, we employed an ultraperformance liquid chromatography quadrupole-time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UPLC-QTOF/MS)-based lipidomics method. A total of 87 human plasma samples from patients with prehemodialysis (pre-HD)/posthemodialysis (post-HD) treatment and the healthy controls were enrolled in the study. As compared with pre-HD patients, many plasma lipids showed significant changes (p < 0.05) in patients receiving HID therapy. Specifically, sum of free fatty acids (FFA) as well as saturated FFA and eicosanoids and sums of lyso-phosphatidylinositols and lyso-phosphatidylethanolamines, FFA 16:1/FFA 16:0, and FFA 18:1/FFA 18:0 were obviously higher in the pre-HD group than in the controls while they were significantly lower in patients after HD. These results indicated that UPLC-QTOF/MS-based lipidomics is a promising approach to investigate lipid alterations in relation to uremia and it is helpful to understand complex complications involved in 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