4.7 Article

Relationship between circulating vascular endothelial growth factor and its soluble receptor in patients with hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome

期刊

EMERGING MICROBES & INFECTIONS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1038/s41426-018-0090-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Slovenian Research Agency [P3-0083]
  2. U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation [SIB1-2964-LJ-09]
  3. European Virus Archive goes Global (EVAg) project from the European Union Horizon research and innovation program [653316]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) is characterized by endothelial dysfunction with capillary leakage without obvious cytopathology in the capillary endothelium The aim of the study was to analyze the kinetics of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its soluble receptor (sVEGFR-2) in HFRS patients infected with Dobrava (DOBV) or Puumala virus (PUUV) VEGF and sVEGFR-2 levels were measured in daily plasma and urine samples of 73 patients with HFRS (58 with PUUV, 15 with DOBV) and evaluated in relation to clinical and laboratory variables In comparison with the healthy controls, initial samples (obtained in the first week of illness) from patients with HFRS had higher plasma and urine VEGF levels, whereas sVEGFR-2 levels were lower in plasma but higher in urine VEGF levels did not differ in relation to hantavirus species, viral load, or the severity of HFRS The comparison of VEGF dynamics in plasma and urine showed the pronounced secretion of VEGF in urine Significant correlations were found between daily VEGF/sVEGFR-2 levels and platelet counts, as well as with diuresis the correlations were positive for plasma VEGF/ sVEGFR-2 levels and negative for urine levels In addition, patients with hemorrhagic manifestations had very high plasma and urine VEGF, together with high urine sVEGFR-2 Measuring the local secretion of sVEGFR-2 in urine might be a useful biomarker for identifying HFRS patients who will progress to severe disease.

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