| Title |
Cross-species validation of cell cycle arrest markers for acute kidney injury in the rat during sepsis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40635-016-0086-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhi-Yong Peng, Feihu Zhou, John A. Kellum |
| Abstract |
The recent discovery of cell cycle arrest biomarkers, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases (TIMP)-2 and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 (IGFBP7), has led to a newly available clinical test for acute kidney injury. The performance of these markers in preclinical studies has not been established. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the performance of TIMP-2 and IGFBP7 in rats undergoing cecal ligation and puncture. In this secondary analysis, we analyzed banked urine samples from 60 Sprague-Dawley rats undergoing cecal ligation and puncture (CLP). Samples were obtained from baseline, 18 h after CLP, at the end of fluid resuscitation (22 h after CLP), and again 24 h later. We measured TIMP-2 and IGFBP7 and compared the results to acute kidney injury by RIFLE criteria for creatinine using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The primary endpoint was moderate-to-severe acute kidney injury (AKI) (I or F criteria), and the primary time point was immediately after fluid resuscitation. Secondary outcomes included mortality and comparisons with other biomarkers: cystatin C and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) in both urine and plasma. After fluid resuscitation, urine [TIMP-2] and [IGFBP7] were significantly higher in animals developing moderate-to-severe AKI (p = 0.002 and p = 0.01). AUC of [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] for AKI was 0.89 (95 % CI 0.80-0.98). By contrast, the next best AUC was seen with plasma cystatin C (0.78; 95 % CI 0.65-0.90). [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] also predicted mortality (AUC 0.69; 95 % CI 0.53-0.85). In this experimental model of sepsis in the rat, cell cycle arrest biomarkers TIMP-2 and IGFBP7 are valid predictors of acute kidney injury. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Belgium | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 24% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 21% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 70% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 July 2016.
All research outputs
#12,764,816
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#197
of 448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,265
of 338,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 448 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
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 338,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.