4.7 Article

High circulating levels of soluble scavenger receptors (sCD5 and sCD6) in patients with primary Sjogren's syndrome

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 40, 期 9, 页码 1056-1059

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/40.9.1056

关键词

soluble CD5; soluble CD6; primary Sjogren's syndrome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To determine the existence of circulating levels of soluble scavenger receptors (sCD5 and sCD6) in patients with primary Sjogren's syndrome (SS), and to analyse the correlation with clinical and immunological features of SS. Methods. Ninety consecutive patients with primary SS were studied. All patients fulfilled four or more of the European diagnostic criteria for SS. sCD5 and sCD6 levels were determined using a specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) developed in our laboratory. Results. Detectable levels of sCD5 were found in 39 (43%) SS patients. The mean +/- standard error values of sCD5 were 3.5 +/-0.5 ng/ml for patients with SS and 1.9 +/-0.1 ng/ml for healthy blood donors (P <0.001). We found higher levels of sCD5 in patients with hypocomplementaemia (6.5 vs 3.5 ng/ml, P=0.03) and cryoglobulinaemia (6.9 vs 2.6 ng/ml, P=0.001). On the other hand, detectable levels of sCD6 were found in 60 (67%) SS patients. The mean +/- standard error values of sCD6 were 25.5 +/-7.8 ng/ml in SS patients and 5.27 +/-1.40 ng/ml in healthy blood donors (P=0.01). When the sCD6 levels were compared according to the presence or absence of immunological features, patients with cryoglobulinaemia showed higher levels of circulating sCD6 (77.3 vs 17 ng/ml, P=0.01) than those without cryoglobulinaemia. Conclusion. Patients with primary SS showed higher levels of circulating sCD5 and sCD6 when compared with controls. Moreover, the existence of some immunological features (hypocomplementaemia and cryoglobulinaemia) was associated with high levels of both soluble scavenger receptors. These facts may reflect an enhanced lymphocytic activation in patients with primary SS.

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