4.6 Article

Recall rate and positive predictive value of MSUD screening is not influenced by hydroxyproline

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 168, Issue 5, Pages 599-604

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-008-0804-0

Keywords

Newborn screening; MSUD; Tandem mass spectrometry; Hydroxyproline

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Maple syrup urine disease (MSUD) is an autosomal recessive inherited disorder caused by the deficiency of the branched-chain 2-oxo acid dehydrogenase (BCOA-DH) complex. The worldwide incidence is approximately 1 in 185,000. MSUD is integrated in many expanded newborn screening (NBS) programs that use electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (ESI-MS/MS). Elevated leucine, isoleucine, and alloisoleucine in the dried blood samples (DBS) of newborns are diagnostic parameters. However, with the applied method, it is not possible to distinguish the amino acids from each other, and also not from the other isobaric amino acid, hydroxyproline. While the branched chain amino acids (BCAA) leucine, isoleucine, and alloisoleucine are no diagnostic problem, because they are all elevated in MSUD patients, and, rather, increase the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, hydroxyproline may cause false-positive screening results. Hydroxyproline is elevated in the benign familial condition hyperhydroxyprolinemia, which needs no medical intervention. The detection of cases with hyperhydroxyprolinemia have formerly been reported from screening programs that used thin-layer chromatography for phenylketonuria (PKU) screening, and, recently, two more cases have been reported, detected by ESI-MS/MS-based NBS. However, the detection of non-diseases is a heavy burden for screening programs and should be avoided if possible. With optimal settings for the quantitation of BCAAs and interpretation rules, elevated hydroxyproline should not cause false-positive screening results.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available