| Literature DB >> 29989057 |
Yu Zhu1, Mi Yang1, Fangjun Li1, Menghua Li1, Zhenzhen Xu1, Fang Yang1, Yue Liu1, Wenzhi Chen1, Yougen Zhang1, Renshi Xu1.
Abstract
Evidences suggest that Cystatin C (Cys C) levels might be a biomarker in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) diagnosis, but the conclusion is still in doubts. We conducted a systematic review and meta analysis of Cys C levels in cerebrospinal cord fluid (CSF) and peripheral blood of patients with ALS in order to further confirm whether or not Cys C levels is a biomarker in ALS diagnosis. The English relevant studies without year limitation were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science databases. The searched term contained "Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis" or "Motor Neuron Diseases" and "Cystatin C" and "Cerebrospinal fluid" or "CSF" or "Biomarker" or "Serum" or "Plasma" or "Blood". Observational studies reporting the associations between Cys C levels and ALS patients were selected to conduct a systematic review and meta analysis. Two reviewers performed the selection of this study independently. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assesses the quality and risk of bias of selected studies. Estimates were pooled using a random-effects model. The Cys C levels of CSF or peripheral blood in ALS patients compared with health controls (HCs) and several relevant neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs). Sixteen studies were included in our systematic review, 9 of them were selected to perform the meta analysis. Of these, eight studies measured Cys C levels in CSF and three studies measured it in blood. Cys C levels in CSF were significantly lower in ALS patients than in HCs (Hedge's g = -1.398, 95%CI: -2.43 to -0.36; p = 0.008), but there was no statistical difference between ALS patients and several relevant NDDs. No statistically significant difference in the Cys C levels of blood in the comparison between ALS and HCs. The correlation meta analysis presented no significant correlation between Cys C levels in CSF and age or disease duration respectively. Cys C levels significantly decrease in the CSF of ALS patients, but are not a specific biomarker for this disease. Cys C levels in CSF might be an auxiliary diagnostic biomarker of ALS.Entities:
Keywords: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; Biomarker; Blood; Cerebrospinal fluid; Cystatin C
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29989057 PMCID: PMC6036727 DOI: 10.7150/ijbs.25711
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Biol Sci ISSN: 1449-2288 Impact factor: 6.580
Figure 1PRISMA 2009 flow diagram.
Characteristics of studies selected for meta-analyses
| Study Country | Method | Sample | ALS patients | Healthy control | Several relevant NDDs | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Age | Cys C Concentration | n | Age | Cys C Concentration | n | Age | Cys C Concentration | |||
| Mean±SD | Mean±S D (ug/ml) | Mean | Mean±SD (ug/ml) | Mean±SD | Mean±SD (ug/ml) | ||||||
| Pasinetti et al. (2006), USA | ELISA and SELDI- TOF-MS | CSF | 36 | 52.86±16.61 | 3.89±0.24 | 21 | 69.65 | 6.27±0.40 | -- | -- | -- |
| Ren et al. (2015), China | Immuno- turbidimetric assay | CSF and Blood | 92 | 52.04±10.07 | 4.17±1.32 (CSF) | 48 | 40.42 | 4.62±1.94 (CSF) | 43 | 59.88±8.81 | 4.10±1.12(CSF) |
| 1.03±0.18 | 5 | 1.01±0.38 (Serum) | |||||||||
| Wilson et al. (2010), USA | Sandwich ELISA kit | CSF and Blood | 44 | 54.86±13.5 | 3.32±1.26 (CSF) | 35 | 46.86 | 4.00±1.48(CSF) | 25 | 47.96±15.4 | 3.61±1.30(CSF) |
| 0.818±0.1 | 57 | 0.705±0.128 (Plasma) | |||||||||
| Wilson et al. (2013), USA | ELISA | CSF | 23 | 48.7 ±13.9 | 3.09±1.10 | 23 | 48.7± | 3.84±1.13 | 23 | 48.5±15.4 | 3.51±1.07 |
| Yamamoto-Watanabe et al. (2010), Japan | Lateximmu no- turbidimetric assay | CSF | 31 | 67.6±8.9 | 4.10±1.20 | 15 | 61.7± | 3.8±0.90 | 84 | -- | 3.55±1.16 |
| Tsuji-Akimoto et al. (2009), Japan | Sandwich ELISA kit | CSF | 14 | 62±10 | 5.50±0.30 | -- | -- | -- | 13 | 56±18 | 6.70±0.40 |
| Collins et al. (2015), USA | ELISA | CSF | 20 | -- | 3.27±1.52 | 8 | -- | 4.98±1.02 | 11 | -- | 4.26±1.16 |
| Tetsuka et al. (2013), Japan | Colloidal gold particles coated with anti-Cys C antibodies | Blood | 76 | 62.7±10.2 | 0.74±0.12 | 30 | 61.5± | 0.72±0.10 (Serum) | |||
| Lehnert et al. (2014), Germany, (Lab 1) | ELISA | CSF | 5 | 51.2±13.7 | 3.553±0.9 | -- | -- | -- | 5 | 55.2±9.4 | 3.234±0.607 |
| Lehnert et al. (2014), Germany, (Lab 2) | ELISA | CSF | 5 | 54.0±5.2 | 2.223±0.3 | -- | -- | -- | 5 | 49.0±10.6 | 2.028±1.133 |
| Lehnert et al. (2014), Germany, (Lab 3) | ELISA | CSF | 5 | 56.4±6.8 | 1.928±0.6 | -- | -- | -- | 5 | 45.6±23.4 | 1.724±0.68 |
| Lehnert et al. (2014), Germany, (Lab 4) | ELISA | CSF | 5 | 70.4±8.1 | 2.152±1.8 | -- | -- | -- | 5 | 50.8±16.7 | 2.462±3.17 |
| Lehnert et al. (2014), Germany, (Lab 5) | ELISA | CSF | 5 | 57.2±11.3 | 2.006±1.2 | -- | -- | -- | 5 | 60.2±15.4 | 1.82±1.365 |
| Lehnert et al. (2014), Germany, (Lab 6) | ELISA | CSF | 5 | 45.6±2.1 | 2.038±1.0 | -- | -- | -- | 5 | 46.6±3.2 | 1.794±0.345 |
Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale of case and control studies
| Study | Selection | Comparability | Exposure | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||
| Pasinetti 2006 | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | -- | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ |
| Ren 2015 | ☆ | ☆ | -- | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ |
| Tetsuka 2013 (1) | ☆ | ☆ | -- | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ |
| Collins 2015 (1) | ☆ | ☆ | -- | ☆ | -- | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆☆☆☆ |
| Wilson 2010 | ☆ | ☆ | -- | ☆ | -- | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆☆☆☆ |
| Wilson 2013 | ☆ | ☆ | -- | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ |
| Yamamoto-Watanabe 2010 | ☆ | ☆ | -- | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ |
| Lehnert 2014 | ☆ | ☆ | -- | ☆ | -- | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆☆☆☆ |
| Tsuji-Akimoto 2009 | ☆ | ☆ | -- | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ |
| Chen 2016 | ☆ | ☆ | -- | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ |
| Collins 2015 (2) | ☆ | -- | -- | ☆ | -- | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆☆☆ |
| Tetsuka 2013 (2) | ☆ | -- | -- | ☆ | -- | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆☆☆ |
| Ranganathan 2007 | ☆ | ☆ | -- | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ |
| Ranganathan 2005 | ☆ | ☆ | -- | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ |
| Ryberg 2010 | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | -- | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ |
| von Neuhoff 2012 | ☆ | ☆ | -- | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆ | ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ |
Figure 2Meta analysis of Cys C levels in CSF of ALS patients versus health controls.
Figure 3Sensitive analysis of Cys C levels in CSF of ALS patients versus health controls.
Figure 4Cys C levels in CSF ALS versus HCs: subgroup analysis based on assay type (enzyme-linked immunoassay [ELISA] and non-ELISA), age-matched study and geography.
Figure 5Meta analysis of CSF Cys C levels in ALS patients versus several relevant NDDs.
Figure 6Sensitive analysis of CSF Cys C levels in ALS patients versus several relevant NDDs.
Figure 7CSF Cys C in ALS versus several relevant NDDs: Subgroup analysis based on assay type (enzyme-linked immunoassay [ELISA] and non-ELISA), age-matched study and geography.
Figure 8Meta analysis of Cys C levels in CSF of ALS patients versus MSA/NDDs.
Figure 9Meta analysis of Cys C levels in peripheral blood of ALS patients versus health controls.
Figure 10Meta analysis of correlation coefficient between Cys C levels in CSF of ALS patients, age and duration time of disease.