4.5 Article

Metabolomic profiling of 17 bile acids in serum from patients with primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis: A pilot study

期刊

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
卷 44, 期 4, 页码 303-310

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2011.10.025

关键词

Cholestasis; LC-MS/MS; Primary biliary cirrhosis; Primary sclerosing cholangitis; Plasma bile acids

资金

  1. Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) [MOP-84338, MSH95330]
  2. Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) [10469]
  3. Fonds pour la Recherche en Sante du Quebec, FRSQ
  4. NIH Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [U 01 HL72524]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis are two cholestatic diseases characterised by hepatic accumulation of bile acids. Aims: This study compares serum bile acid levels in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis and from age and sex-matched non cholestatic donors. Methods: Seventeen bile acids were quantified using liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. Serum samples from cholestatic patients were compared with those of non-cholestatic donors. Results: The concentration of total bile acids, taurine and glycine conjugates of primary bile acids was elevated in both patients with primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis when compared to non-cholestatic donors. Samples from primary sclerosing cholangitis patients displayed reduced levels of secondary acids, when compared to non cholestatic and primary biliary cirrhosis sera. The ratio of total glycine versus total taurine conjugates was reduced in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis, but not in primary sclerosing cholangitis. Conclusion: The present study suggests that circulating bile acids are altered differentially in primary biliary cirrhosis and primary sclerosing cholangitis patients. (C) 2011 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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