IMMUNOCHEMICAL EVALUATION OF SPINAL CORD INJURY BIOMARKER S100B IN EXPERIMENTAL ANIMAL MODEL
Keywords:
S100B protein; spinal cord injury; experiment; immunochemistryAbstract
The implementation of biomarkers in spinal cord injury (SCI) provides a useful tool to support clinical decision-making in the acute phase. S100b has been considered specific to the nervous system. In cases of SCI, this protein is released from nerve cells, and its concentration increases in the cerebrospinal fluid and blood under various CNS conditions. Over the past 20 years, several experimental and in vivo studies have been conducted on the prognostic role of S100b in tissues, serum or cerebrospinal fluid after SCI, which concluded that this biomarker could be a real-time indicator of early stages of spinal cord injury. S100b levels in serum and cerebrospinal fluid in experimental studies increased rapidly for a short time and then gradually decreased and reached normal levels a few days after injury. In addition, S100b has been studied as a predictor of initial spinal cord injury, which directly reflects the severity of SCI. Significant changes in serum S100b levels were also observed in patients with vertebral fractures and spinal cord injury. S100b protein may be a useful tool after spinal cord injury for early detection of the extent of spinal cord injury and the degree of neurological outcome within 14 days after injury.
References
Burns AS, Ditunno JF. Establishing prognosis and maximizing functional outcomes after spinal cord injury: a review of current and future directions in rehabilitation management. Spine. 2001;26(24S):S137–S45. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200112151-00023.
2.Norton L. Spinal Cord Injury, Australia, 2007-08. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare ; 2010
3.Van Middendorp J, Hosman A, Pouw M, Van De Meent H. Is determination between complete and incomplete traumatic spinal cord injury clinically relevant? Validation of the ASIA sacral sparing criteria in a prospective cohort of 432 patients. Spinal Cord. 2009;47(11):809. doi: 10.1038/sc.2009.44.
van Middendorp JJ, Goss B, Urquhart S, Atresh S, Williams RP, Schuetz M. Diagnosis and prognosis of traumatic spinal cord injury. Global spine journal. 2011;1(01):001–8. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1296049.
van Middendorp JJ, Sanchez GM, Burridge AL. The Edwin Smith papyrus: a clinical reappraisal of the oldest known document on spinal injuries. European Spine Journal. 2010;19(11):1815–23. doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1523-6
Kirshblum SC, Burns SP, Biering-Sorensen F, Donovan W, Graves DE, Jha A, et al. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (revised 2011) The journal of spinal cord medicine. 2011;34(6):535–46. doi: 10.1179/204577211X13207446293695
Kwon BK, Streijger F, Fallah N, Noonan VK, Bélanger LM, Ritchie L, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers to stratify injury severity and predict outcome in human traumatic spinal cord injury. Journal of neurotrauma. 2017;34(3):567–80. doi: 10.1089/neu.2016.4435.
8.Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJ. Global burden of disease and risk factors. New York: Oxford University Press ; 2006.
9.Tator CH. Review of treatment trials in humanspinal cord injury: issues, difficulties, and recommendations. Neurosurgery. 2006;59(5):957–87. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000245591.16087.89.
Wyndaele M, Wyndaele J-J. Incidence, prevalence and epidemiology of spinal cord injury: what learns a worldwide literature survey? Spinal cord. 2006;44(9):523. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3101893.
