| Title |
New biomarkers for stage determination in Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense sleeping sickness patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Medicine, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2001-1326-2-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Natalia Tiberti, Enock Matovu, Alexandre Hainard, John Charles Enyaru, Veerle Lejon, Xavier Robin, Natacha Turck, Dieudonné Mumba Ngoyi, Sanjeev Krishna, Sylvie Bisser, Bertrand Courtioux, Philippe Büscher, Krister Kristensson, Joseph Mathu Ndung'u, Jean-Charles Sanchez |
| Abstract |
Accurate stage determination is crucial in the choice of treatment for patients suffering from sleeping sickness, also known as human African trypanosomiasis (HAT). Current staging methods, based on the counting of white blood cells (WBC) and the detection of parasites in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) have limited accuracy. We hypothesized that immune mediators reliable for staging T. b. gambiense HAT could also be used to stratify T. b. rhodesiense patients, the less common form of HAT.A population comprising 85 T. b. rhodesiense patients, 14 stage 1 (S1) and 71 stage 2 (S2) enrolled in Malawi and Uganda, was investigated. The CSF levels of IgM, MMP-9, CXCL13, CXCL10, ICAM-1, VCAM-1, neopterin and B2MG were measured and their staging performances evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses.IgM, MMP-9 and CXCL13 were the most accurate markers for stage determination (partial AUC 88%, 86% and 85%, respectively). The combination in panels of three molecules comprising CXCL13-CXCL10-MMP-9 or CXCL13-CXCL10-IgM significantly increased their staging ability to partial AUC 94% (p value < 0.01).The present study highlighted new potential markers for stage determination of T. b. rhodesiense patients. Further investigations are needed to better evaluate these molecules, alone or in panels, as alternatives to WBC to make reliable choice of treatment. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 14% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 January 2013.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#851
of 1,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,890
of 289,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.