4.1 Article

Serum creatine kinase isoenzymes and macroenzymes in dogs with different neurologic diseases

期刊

VETERINARY CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 91-99

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/vcp.12443

关键词

CK; CK-BB; dog; electrophoresis; neurology

资金

  1. University of Milan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundIncreased serum activity of CK isoenzymes and macroenzymes, and in particular of the brain isoenzyme (CK-BB) has been reported in dogs with central nervous system (CNS) disorders. However, no studies on the possible differences in serum activities of CK iso- or macroenzymes (Macro-CK1 and Macro-CK2) in different neurologic diseases are available. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to describe the electrophoretic distribution of CK iso- and macroenzymes in dogs with CNS disorders in order to assess whether this distribution depends on a specific neurologic disease. MethodsThis study was done on sera from 45 dogs with neurologic diseases (degenerative, n = 7; idiopathic epilepsy [IE], n = 14; inflammatory, n = 16; space occupying lesions [SOL], n = 8) and from 10 clinically healthy dogs. The separation of serum CK isoenzymes and macroenzymes was performed using an automated electrophoretic method already validated in dogs. ResultsCompared with healthy dogs, dogs with CNS disorders had significantly higher total CK and CK-BB activities, and a significantly lower Macro-CK2 activity (P < .001). Comparison of pathologic subgroups and healthy dogs revealed significant differences (P < .01) in dogs with IE and inflammatory disorders for total CK activity, in all the subgroups for CK-BB (P < .01), and in dogs with IE and SOL for Macro-CK2 (P < .01). ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that CK-BB is released by neurons damaged by inflammatory or degenerative conditions or due to compressive effects of SOL. However, the neurologic diseases cannot be differentiated based on CK-BB or Macro-CK2 activities, unless further studies allow the definition of diagnostic thresholds.

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

4.1
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