SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Glucosylsphingosine (Lyso-Gb1) as a reliable biomarker in Gaucher disease: a narrative review.

Orphanet J Rare Dis · 2023-02-13

DOI: 10.1186/s13023-023-02623-7PMID: 36782327

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; review-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundGaucher disease (GD) is a rare, inherited, autosomal recessive disorder caused by a deficiency of the lysosomal enzyme, acid β-glucosidase. Its diagnosis is achieved via measurements of acid β-glucosidase activity in either fresh peripheral blood leukocytes or dried blood spots, and confirmed by identifying characteristic mutations in the GBA1 gene. Currently, several biomarkers are available for disease monitoring. Chitotriosidase has been used over the last 20 years to assess the severity of GD, but lacks specificity in GD patients. Conversely, the deacylated form of glucosylceramide, glucosylsphingosine (also known as lyso-Gb1), represents a more reliable biomarker characterized by its high sensitivity and specificity in GD.Main textHerein, we review the current literature on lyso-Gb1 and describe evidence supporting its usefulness as a biomarker for diagnosing and evaluating disease severity in GD and monitoring treatment efficacy.ConclusionLyso-Gb1 is the most promising biomarker of GD, as demonstrated by its reliability in reflecting disease burden and monitoring treatment response. Furthermore, lyso-Gb1 may play an important role in the onset of monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance, multiple myeloma, and Parkinson's disease in GD patients.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.