4.3 Article

Lipoprotein lipase activity and mass, apolipoprotein C-II mass and polymorphisms of apolipoproteins E and A5 in subjects with prior acute hypertriglyceridaemic pancreatitis

期刊

BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-9-46

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council
  2. King Gustaf V and Queen Victoria Research Fund
  3. Grupos de Investigacion y Desarrollo Tecnologico de la Junta de Andalucia [CTS159]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Severe hypertriglyceridaemia due to chylomicronemia may trigger an acute pancreatitis. However, the basic underlying mechanism is usually not well understood. We decided to analyze some proteins involved in the catabolism of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins in patients with severe hypertriglyceridaemia. Methods: Twenty-four survivors of acute hypertriglyceridaemic pancreatitis (cases) and 31 patients with severe hypertriglyceridaemia (controls) were included. Clinical and anthropometrical data, chylomicronaemia, lipoprotein profile, postheparin lipoprotein lipase mass and activity, hepatic lipase activity, apolipoprotein C II and CIII mass, apo E and A5 polymorphisms were assessed. Results: Only five cases were found to have LPL mass and activity deficiency, all of them thin and having the first episode in childhood. No cases had apolipoprotein CII deficiency. No significant differences were found between the non-deficient LPL cases and the controls in terms of obesity, diabetes, alcohol consumption, drug therapy, gender distribution, evidence of fasting chylomicronaemia, lipid levels, LPL activity and mass, hepatic lipase activity, CII and CIII mass or apo E polymorphisms. However, the SNP S19W of apo A5 tended to be more prevalent in cases than controls (40% vs. 23%, NS). Conclusion: Primary defects in LPL and C-II are rare in survivors of acute hypertriglyceridaemic pancreatitis; lipase activity measurements should be restricted to those having their first episode during chilhood.

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

4.3
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