4.5 Review

Neurofilament light chain protein as a marker of neuronal injury: review of its use in HIV-1 infection and reference values for HIV-negative controls

期刊

EXPERT REVIEW OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 761-770

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/14737159.2017.1341313

关键词

HIV; cerebrospinal fluid; neurofilament light; neurodegeneration; biomarker

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [K2011-58P-20931-01-4, 2013-2546]
  2. Sahlgrenska University Hospital [ALFGBG-430271, ALFGBG-441051]
  3. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  4. National Institutes of Health [R01MH62701, R21MH096619, R21NS069219, UL1 TR000004]
  5. European Union's Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration [305522]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Several CSF biomarkers of neuronal injury have been studied in people living with HIV. At this time, the most useful is the light subunit of the neurofilament protein (NFL). This major structural component of myelinated axons is essential to maintain axonal caliber and to facilitate effective nerve conduction. CSF concentrations of NFL provide a sensitive marker of CNS injury in a number of neurological diseases, including HIV-related neuronal injury. Areas Covered: In this review, the authors describe CSF NFL concentrations across the spectrum of HIV-infection, from its early acute phase to severe immunosuppression, with and without neurological conditions, and with and without antiretroviral treatment (n = 516). Furthermore, in order to provide more precise estimates of age-related upper limits of CSF NFL concentrations, the authors present data from a large number (n = 359) of HIV-negative controls. Expert Commentary: Recently a new ultrasensitive diagnostic assay for quantification of NFL in plasma has been developed, providing a convenient way to assess neuronal damage without having to perform a lumbar puncture. This review also considers our current knowledge of plasma NFL in HIV CNS infection.

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

4.5
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