ReviewBrain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland)2000
Diagnostic protein expression in human muscle biopsies.
Review in Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland), 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- From proteins to genes: immunoanalysis in the diagnosis of muscular dystrophies.Skeletal muscle · 2011Article
- Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy: contribution of a molecular and immunohistochemical analysis in diagnosis in Morocco.Journal of biomedicine & biotechnology · 2009Article
- Viral-mediated gene therapy for the muscular dystrophies: successes, limitations and recent advances.Biochimica et biophysica acta · 2007Review
- Long-term persistence of donor nuclei in a Duchenne muscular dystrophy patient receiving bone marrow transplantation.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2002Article
- Non-sarcolemmal muscular dystrophies.Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland) · 2001Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using immunohistochemistry in diagnosing neuromuscular diseases is meant to enhance the diagnostic yield in two ways. The first application aims at visualizing molecules which are developmentally, neurally, and/or immunologically regulated and not expressed by normal muscle. They are upregulated in pathological conditions and may help assign a given muscular biopsy to one of the main diagnostic entities (muscular dystrophies, inflammatory myopathy, neurogenic atrophy). In the past, muscle-specific molecules with a defined expression pattern during fetal myogenesis served as antigens, with the rationale that the developmental program was switched on in new fibers. Recently, myofibers in diseased muscle are thought of as targets of stimuli which are released by macrophages in muscular dystrophy, by lymphocytes in inflammatory myopathies, or by a lesioned peripheral nerve in neurogenic atrophies. This has somewhat blurred the borders between the diagnostic groups, for certain molecules, e.g. cytokines, may be upregulated after experimental necrotization, denervation, and also in inflammatory myopathies. In the second part of this review we summarise the experiences of a Centre in the North of England that specialises in the diagnosis and clinical support of patients with muscular dystrophy. Emphasis is placed on the use of protein expression to guide mutation analysis, particularly in the limb-girdle muscular dystrophies (a group of diseases that are very difficult to differentiate on clinical grounds alone). We confirm that genetic analysis is essential to corroborate the results of protein analysis in certain conditions (particularly in calpainopathy). However, we conclude that analysing biopsies for abnormal protein expression is very useful in aiding the decision between alternative diagnoses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.