Search

Hemodialysis (HD) patients are under recurrent circulatory stress, and hemodialysis has a high mortality rate. The characteristics of plasma proteomes in patients surviving long-term HD remain obscure, as well as the potential biomarkers in predicting prognoses. This study reports the proteome analyses of patient plasma from non-diabetic long-term HD (LHD, dialysis vintage 14.9±4.1 years, n = 6) and the age/sex/uremic etiology-comparable short-term HD (SHD, dialysis vintage 5.3±2.9 years, n = 6) using 2-DE and mass spectrometry. In addition, a 4-year longitudinal follow-up of 60 non-diabetic HD patients was subsequently conducted to analyze the baseline plasma proteins by ELISA in predicting prognosis. Compared to the SHD, the LHD survivors had increased plasma vitamin D binding proteins (DBP) and decreased clusterin, apolipoprotein A-IV, haptoglobin, hemopexin, complement factors B and H, and altered isoforms of α1-antitrypsin and fibrinogen gamma. During the 45.7±15 months for follow-up of the 60 HD patient cases, 16 patients died. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that HD patients with the lowest tertile of the baseline plasma DBP level have a significantly higher mortality rate. Multivariate Cox regression analysis further indicated that DBP is an independent predictor of mortality. In summary, the altered plasma proteins in LHD implicated accelerated atherosclerosis, defective antioxidative activity, increased inflammation/infection, and organ dysfunction. Furthermore, lower baseline plasma DBP in HD patients is related to mortality. The results suggest that the proteomic approach could help discover the potential biomarker in HD prognoses.

Background The usage of urine protein/creatinine ratio to estimate daily urine protein excretion is prevalent, but relatively little attention has been paid to the influence of urine concentration and its impact on test accuracy. We took advantage of 24-hour urine collection to examine both urine protein/creatinine ratio (UPCR) and daily urine protein excretion, with the latter as the reference standard. Specific gravity from a concomitant urinalysis of the same urine sample was used to indicate the urine concentration. Methods During 2010 to 2014, there were 540 adequately collected 24h urine samples with protein concentration, creatinine concentration, total volume, and a concomitant urinalysis of the same sample. Variables associated with an accurate UPCR estimation were determined by multivariate linear regression analysis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to determine the discriminant cut-off values of urine creatinine concentration for predicting an accurate UPCR estimation in either dilute or concentrated urine samples. Results Our findings indicated that for dilute urine, as indicated by a low urine specific gravity, UPCR is more likely to overestimate the actual daily urine protein excretion. On the contrary, UPCR of concentrated urine is more likely to result in an underestimation. By ROC curve analysis, the best cut-off value of urine creatinine concentration for predicting overestimation by UPCR of dilute urine (specific gravity ≦ 1.005) was ≦ 38.8 mg/dL, whereas the best cut-off values of urine creatinine for predicting underestimation by UPCR of thick urine were ≧ 63.6 mg/dL (specific gravity ≧ 1.015), ≧ 62.1 mg/dL (specific gravity ≧ 1.020), ≧ 61.5 mg/dL (specific gravity ≧ 1.025), respectively. We also compared distribution patterns of urine creatinine concentration of 24h urine cohort with a concurrent spot urine cohort and found that the underestimation might be more profound in single voided samples. Conclusions The UPCR in samples with low or high specific gravity is more likely to overestimate or underestimate actual daily urine protein amount, respectively, especially in a dilute urine sample with its creatinine below 38.8 mg/dL or a concentrated sample with its creatinine above 61.5 mg/dL. In particular, UPCR results should be interpreted with caution in cases that involve dilute urine samples because its overestimation may lead to an erroneous diagnosis of proteinuric renal disease or an incorrect staging of chronic kidney disease.