4.8 Article

Extensive troponin I and T modification detected in serum from patients with acute myocardial infarction

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 102, 期 11, 页码 1221-1226

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.102.11.1221

关键词

troponin; myocardial infarction; biological markers; diagnosis; blotting, western

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Cardiac troponin I and T (cTnI and cTnT) are specific biochemical serum markers for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, cTnI diagnostic assays are plagued by difficulties, resulting in greater than or equal to 20-fold differences in measured values. These discrepancies may result from the release of the numerous cTnI modification products that are present in ischemic myocardium. The resolution of these discrepancies requires an investigation of the exact forms of cTnI present in the bloodstream of patients after myocardial injury. Methods and Results-A western blot-direct serum analysis protocol was developed that allowed us to detect intact cTnI and a spectrum of up to 11 modified products in the serum from patients with AMI. For the first time, we document both a cTnI degradation pattern and the existence of phosphorylated cTnT, in serum. The number and extent of these modifications reflect patterns similar to the time profiles of the routine clinical serum markers of total creatine kinase, creatine kinase-MB, and cTnI (determined by ELISA). Data from in vitro experiments, which were undertaken to study the degradation of human recombinant cTnI and cTnT when spiked in serum, indicate that some modification products present in patient serum existed in the myocardium and that recombinant cTnI alteration dramatically reduces the detectability of cTnI by the Immunol assay over time (our assay was unaffected). Conclusions-This pilot study defines, for the first time, what forms of cTnI and cTnT appear in the bloodstream of AMI patients, and it clarifies the lack of standardization between different cTnI diagnostic assays.

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

4.8
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