I want to evaluate if some groups of humans have endotoxemia or are at risk for. So, I have this huge doubt whether I must choose serum LPS ou serum LBP or even other marker/protein, because the research papers do not discuss what is the bettter marker for diagnosis endotoxemia, or the better marker (from gut) for activating serum monocytes.
Disclaimer: I am not an expert in your interesting field; please take my suggestions with a grain of salt. I will also wait for responses from experienced scientists on this thread.
Given the circumstances you described, is it possible for you to design and implement a study wherein you measure serum LPS, serum LBP and other markers you are considering in the subjects, follow-up the subjects through time a la cohort study, then assess which of the markers "predicted" endotoxemia better/best? Since there seems to be ambiguity on the issue, I think pursuing such design will increase the impact/relevance of your work.
Hi Aedrian, I appreciate your suggestion. In fact, I have thought about this design but I will not be able to perform a propesctive study at this moment. For this, I have study several technical papers regarding endotoxemia markers to choose the best marker for my research question. It seems that LBP is better than LPS due to lipoproteins and other proteins present in blood that may interfere on LPS detection. And LAL test may underestimate the LPS detection. On the other hand, LBP at high concentrations not necessarily activates TLR4 pathway in monocytes. I have read about endotoxemia tolerance, which is also confusing in a clinical matter.
Anyway, thanks for comment here!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Disease
- Infectious Diseases