4.7 Article

Advanced glycation end-products pentosidine and Nε-carboxymethyllysine are elevated in serum of patients with osteoporosis

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 42, 期 10, 页码 1242-1246

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keg324

关键词

osteoporosis; advanced glycation end-product; pentosidine; N-epsilon-carboxymethyllysine; bone formation; bone resorption; bone histomorphometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To investigate serum levels of the advanced glycation end-products (AGEs) pentosidine and N-epsilon-carboxymethyllysine (CML) in patients classified into different osteoporosis subgroups according to histomorphometric data. Method. Serum samples were obtained from 116 osteoporotic patients (34 men, 82 women) classified by bone histomorphometry into subgroups with high turnover (HTO, n = 32), low turnover (LTO, n = 39), normal turnover (NTO, n = 9) and cellular uncoupled osteoporosis (CUO, n = 36). Pentosidine was measured by high-performance liquid chromatography, and CML by a competitive enzyme-linked immunoassay. Results. The entire osteoporosis group had significantly higher pentosidine and CML serum concentrations than healthy subjects. In contrast to healthy subjects, no correlation between levels of AGEs and age could be found. In subgroups characterized by increased bone resorption (HTO, CUO), serum pentosidine correlated significantly with the histomorphometric marker reflecting osteoclast activity/bone resorption (eroded surface as a percentage of trabecular surface). Moreover, in CUO a strong correlation between pentosidine and the mineral apposition rate was found. Surprisingly, in HTO the levels of CML and percentage of eroded surface were significantly negatively correlated. Conclusion. AGE-modified proteins may be a cause of disturbed bone remodelling in osteoporosis. Our findings do not support the alternative hypothesis that increased AGEs in serum indicate only a more intensive releasing of AGEs in circumstances of increased bone resorption.

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