Matrix metalloproteinase 9 and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 in vesicoureteral reflux.

Creative Commons License

Yilmaz A., Bilge I., Kıyak A., Gedikbaşı A., Sucu A., Aksu B., ...More

Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), vol.27, no.3, pp.435-41, 2012 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 27 Issue: 3
  • Publication Date: 2012
  • Doi Number: 10.1007/s00467-011-2026-3
  • Journal Name: Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Page Numbers: pp.435-41
  • Keywords: Matrix metalloproteinase 9, MMP 9, Renal scar, TIMP, Tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1, Vesicoureteral reflux, Children, Biomarker, MATRIX METALLOPROTEINASES, FIBROSIS, DAMAGE
  • Istanbul University Affiliated: Yes


The aim of this study was to investigate whether urine levels of matrix metalloproteinase 9 (uMMP9) and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 (uTIMP1) are novel biomarkers of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) and to determine the optimal cut-off levels of these enzymes to predict VUR in children. The study group consisted of 67 children with VUR and 20 healthy children. Urine MMP9 and TIMP1 levels were measured by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Children with VUR had significantly higher uMMP9 (1,539.8 vs. 256.4 pg/mL; p = 0.0001) and uTIMP1 (182 vs. 32.6 pg/mL; p = 0.0001) levels than healthy children. For the prediction of VUR, the sensitivity of uMMP9 was 67%, with a specificity of 85% [cut-off value 1,054 pg/mL; area under the curve (AUC) 0.77], and the sensitivity of uTIMP1 was 74%, with a specificity of 65% (cut-off value 18.7 pg/mL; AUC 0.73). Both uMMP9 and uTIMP1 levels were significantly higher in patients with renal scar (uMMP9: 3,117.3 vs. 1,234.15 pg/mL; p = 0.0001; uTIMP1: 551.05 vs. 128.64 pg/mL; p = 0.0001). Urine MMP9 levels had a sensitivity of 81.2%, with a specificity of 85% to predict renal scar in the VUR group (cut-off 1,054 pg/mL; AUC 0.88). The sensitivity of uTIMP1 was 75%, with a specificity of 90% to predict renal scar (cut-off 243.7 pg/mL; AUC 0.82). Based on these results, we suggest that uTIMP1 may be a useful marker to predict renal scarring with a different cut-off value from VUR and a high specificity at this cut-off point. Although uMMP9 seemingly cannot distinguish renal scar from VUR, the simultaneous increase in the level of both markers may indicate ongoing renal injury due to VUR.