4.7 Article

Lipocalin-2 Variants and Their Relationship With Cardio-Renal Risk Factors

Journal

FRONTIERS IN ENDOCRINOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.781763

Keywords

Lipocalin-2 (Lcn2); protein variants; biomarker; heart; kidney

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study demonstrates gender differences in LCN2 variants in healthy individuals, which are associated with cardiometabolic risk factors, while also showing correlations with renal function specifically in urine.
ObjectivesTo investigate the serum, plasma and urine levels of lipocalin-2 (LCN2) variants in healthy humans and their associations with risk factors for cardiometabolic (CMD) and chronic kidney (CKD) diseases. MethodsFifty-nine males and 41 females participated in the study. Blood and urine were collected following an overnight fasting. LCN2 variants were analyzed using validated in-house ELISA kits. Heart rate, blood pressure, lipids profile, glucose, adiponectin, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), creatinine, cystatin C, and biomarkers for kidney function were assessed. ResultsThe levels of hLcn2, C87A and R81E in serum and urine, but not plasma, were significantly higher in men than women. Increased levels of LCN2 variants, as well as their relative ratios, in serum and plasma were positively associated with body mass index, blood pressure, triglyceride and hsCRP (P<0.05). No significant correlations were found between these measures and hLcn2, C87A or R81E in urine. However, LCN2 variants in urine, but not plasma or serum, were correlated with biomarkers of kidney function (P<0.05). ConclusionsBoth the serum and plasma levels of LCN2 variants, as well as their ratios are associated with increased cardiometabolic risk, whereas those in urine are correlated with renal dysfunction. LCN2 variants represent promising biomarkers for CMD and CKD.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available