4.6 Article

High levels of circulating cell-free DNA are a biomarker of active SLE

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eci.13015

关键词

anti-dsDNA antibodies; circulating cell-free DNA; inflammation; SLE disease activity index; systemic lupus erythematosus

资金

  1. Chinese National High Technology Research and Development Program, Ministry of Science and Technology [2012AA02A513]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81270717, 81490743]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background High levels of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) have been reported in patients with inflammatory conditions. The aim of the study was to investigate the levels of cfDNA in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Materials and methods Results Comparative groups comprised 22 nonpregnant and 36 pregnant women with SLE (test groups) and 60 nonpregnant and 199 pregnant women with no history of SLE (control groups). The levels of cfDNA in plasma were quantitated by a fluorometric dsDNA assay. Compared to controls, the median levels of cfDNA were significantly higher in nonpregnant SLE patients (7.38 ng/mL vs 4.6 ng/mL, P = 0.033) and in pregnant SLE patients (7.65 ng/mL vs 5.25 ng/mL, P = 0.003). Based on SLE disease activity index (SLEDAI) scores, the median cfDNA levels were significantly higher in patients with active disease (4 SLEDAI < 15) compared with patients with inactive disease (SLEDAI < 4) (13.58 ng/mL vs 6.72 ng/mL, P = 0.01). While there was a trend of increased cfDNA levels with higher SLEDAI scores (R-2 = 0.3, P < 0.001), we found no association of increased cfDNA levels with nephritis, skin manifestations, multiorgan inflammations or with other inflammatory markers such as decreased C3 and C4 levels or increased anti-ds DNA antibodies. Conclusions Our results suggest that in addition to classical SLE serological markers, measurement of circulating plasma cfDNA levels has potential as a useful biomarker for assessing SLE disease activity in patients and monitoring treatment.

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