4.5 Article

A Study of Hepcidin and Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein-1 in Egyptian Females With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Volume 28, Issue 4, Pages 306-309

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.21685

Keywords

lupus nephritis; urinary biomarkers; monocyte chemoattractant protein-1; hepcidin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Lupus nephritis is one of the most serious manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Novel biomarkers are necessary to enhance the diagnostic accuracy, prognostic stratification, monitoring of treatment response, and detection of early renal flares. Methods: Our study was conducted on 90 participants. They were divided into three groups, group I (controls) encompassed 30 ages and sex-matched healthy personnel. Group II included 30 non-nephritic SLE patients and finally group III included 30 SLE nephritic patients. Urinary monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (UMCP-1) and hepcidin were evaluated by ELISA technique, compared and correlated in different groups, with each other and with other routine variables and with renal biopsy done to study group (III). Results: Both UMCP-1 and hepcidin in group III showed significant increase compared to other two groups (controls and group II) (468 +/- 128, 111 +/- 12, 252 +/- 56 pg/ml, respectively, for UMCP-1 and 40 +/- 12, 11 +/- 2, 20 +/- 5 ng/ml, respectively, for hepcidin, P < 0.01). Also both UMCP-1 and hepcidin in group III showed significant increase in diffuse proliferative subgroup compared to focal proliferative and mesangioproliferative subgroups (580 +/- 43, 502 +/- 46, and 352.6 +/- 100 pg/ml, respectively, for UMCP-1 and 47.8 +/- 9.5, 41.4 +/- 6, and 32.9 +/- 10.8 ng/ml, respectively, for urinary hepcidin, P < 0.05). Conclusion: UMCP-1 and hepcidin could be associated with the susceptibility of lupus nephritis. (C) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available