4.6 Article

Sclerostin and Dickkopf-1 in Renal Osteodystrophy

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.06550810

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Kentucky [1012112710]
  2. NIH [RO1 DK080770-01]
  3. Kentucky Nephrology Research Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives The serum proteins sclerostin and Dickkopf-1 (Dkk-1) are soluble inhibitors of canonical wnt signaling and were recently identified as components of parathyroid hormone (PTH) signal transduction. This study investigated the associations between sclerostin and Dkk-1 with histomorphometric parameters of bone turnover, mineralization, and volume in stage 5 chronic kidney disease patients on dialysis (CKD-5D). Design, setting, participants, & measurements In a cross-sectional study, 60 CKD-5D patients underwent bone biopsies followed by histomorphometry. Levels of sclerostin, Dkk-1, and intact PTH (iPTH) were determined in blood. Results Serum levels of sclerostin and iPTH correlated negatively. In unadjusted analyses, sclerostin correlated negatively with histomorphometric parameters of turnover, osteoblastic number, and function. In adjusted analyses, sclerostin remained a strong predictor of parameters of bone turnover and osteoblast number. An observed correlation between sclerostin and cancellous bone volume was lost in regression analyses. Sclerostin was superior to iPTH for the positive prediction of high bone turnover and number of osteoblasts. In contrast, iPTH was superior to sclerostin for the negative prediction for high bone turnover and had similar predictive values than sclerostin for the number of osteoblasts. Serum levels of Dkk-1 did not correlate with iPTH or with any histomorphometric parameter. Conclusions Our data describe a promising role for serum measurements of sclerostin in addition to iPTH in the diagnosis of high bone turnover in CKD-5D patients, whereas measurements of Dkk-1 do not seem to be useful for this purpose. J Am Soc Nephrol 6: 877-882, 2011. doi: 10.2215/CJN.06550810

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

4.6
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