Skip to main content

Implication of plasma gelsolin in systemic lupus erythematosus patients

Abstract

Background

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disorder with more than one organ involvement. Kidney is the foremost commonly affected one. Gelsolin is a protein that induces depolymerization of actin filaments thus preventing downstream stimulation of inflammatory reactions. The aim of this work was to detect the relation of plasma gelsolin to SLE disease activity and severity indices in order to find out if plasma gelsolin could be used as a biomarker of the disease. This study was conducted on 50 SLE female patients and 30 matched control. SLE disease activity Index (SLEDAI) and SLE damage index (SDI) were assessed. All lupus nephritis (LN) patients were subjected to an ultrasound-guided kidney biopsy. Plasma gelsolin level was measured.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 38.5 ± 6.3 years (26–51 years) with median disease duration of 5 (3–9.3) years. Eighteen patients had LN, 11 had cardiac manifestations and 12 had chest manifestations. The mean SLEDAI was 13.1 ± 4.5 (4–22) and the median SDI was 2 (1–3). Plasma gelsolin level was significantly lower in SLE patients (74.9 mg/l; 57.5–98.8 mg/l) compared to control (801.5 mg/l; 225–1008.3 mg/l) (p < 0.001). There were significant negative correlations of gelsolin levels with anti-ds DNA (r = − 0.63, p < 0.001), SLEDAI (r = − 0.79, p < 0.001), and SDI (r = − 0.74, p = 0.001). Plasma gelsolin level was significantly lower in SLE patients with high/very high activity grades compared to those with low and moderate (p = 0.007 and p < 0.001 respectively). A gelsolin level of ≤ 78.95 mg/l significantly predicted renal affection (p < 0.001), with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity 71.9%, and a positive predictive value 66.7%.

Conclusion

A decreased gelsolin level is associated with disease activity in SLE patients. Plasma gelsolin was well related to disease activity and severity with a high predictive value for renal affection comparable to anti-ds DNA titre. Plasma gelsolin is a potentially important predictive biomarker for SLE and LN.

Background

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disorder with more than one organ involvement, when becomes hyperactive forming antibodies attacking ordinary organs like the skin, kidneys, brain, joints, heart, lungs, and blood [1, 2]. Renal involvement is common in SLE with the kidney being the foremost commonly affected organ, and it is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality [3]. Lupus nephritis (LN) evolves whenever autoantibodies target the kidneys, which filter waste. This leads to renal inflammation which may result in blood or protein in the urine, elevated blood pressure, impaired kidney function, or finally kidney failure [4,5,6]. A lot of research is focusing at the discovery of the latest biomarkers for the early detection and tracking of SLE and LN [7].

Gelsolin is a multifunctional protein that has actin filament severing, capping, and nucleating functions [8,9,10]. This protein has two different isoforms: a cytoplasmic and a circulating isoform. Gelsolin induces the depolymerization of actin filaments; this would prevent the downstream stimulation of inflammatory reactions by these actin filaments [11, 12]. In conditions of acute damage or inflammation, gelsolin levels tend to decrease [13, 14].

Gelsolin is involved in the immune response and considered an anti-inflammatory modulator. Gelsolin depletion is additionally linked to the release of inflammatory mediators [15, 16].

Methods

Plasma samples and clinical data were collected from 50 female SLE patients attending the Rheumatology outpatient clinic and department inpatient of Benha University Hospitals diagnosed according to the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) SLE classification criteria [17]. Pregnant patients and cases with other immunological disorders or liver diseases were excluded. Thirty apparently healthy individuals represented the control group with a comparable age, sex, and social level.

All patients were subjected to full history taking and thorough clinical examination. The SLE disease activity index (SLEDAI) [18] was assessed and classified as low (score: 1–5), moderate (score: 6–10), high (score: 11–19), and very high (score ≥ 20). The SLE damage index (SDI) [19] was considered according to the systemic lupus international collaborating clinics/ACR (SLICC/ACR) score.

Laboratory evaluation included the complete blood count (CBC), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), serum creatinine, blood urea, anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA), anti-ds DNA antibodies (titre) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique, complete urine analysis, protein/24 h urine, and protein/creatinine ratio.

All LN patients (n = 18) were subjected to an ultrasound-guided kidney biopsy and samples evaluated according to the international society of nephrology/renal pathology society (ISN/RPS) classification [20].

The plasma gelsolin level was measured by a sandwich ELISA kit (Cat no: E1233HU, Shanghai Crystal Day Biotech Co., Ltd., China) according to manufacturing instructions.

Statistical analysis: data were analyzed using the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) software, version 22.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Categorical data were presented as numbers and percentages, mean ± SD (range) or median with interquartile range (IQR). Chi-square (χ2) and Fisher’s exact tests were used for comparisons. Linear association between variables was assessed by Spearman’s correlation coefficients. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were constructed to assess the ability of gelsolin to predict the activity and severity of SLE. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was run to detect the predictors of renal affection. A p value < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

The mean age of the patients (38.5 ± 6.3 years; 26–51 years) was comparable to the age of the control (37.8 ± 7.5 years; 26–50 years, p = 0.68). The characteristics and laboratory findings of the patients are presented in Table 1. All patients were receiving steroids, 94% hydroxychloroquine, 24% azathioprine, 14% mycophenolate mofetil, 10% methotrexate, and 10% cyclophosphamide (CYC).

Table 1 Characteristics and laboratory findings of the systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients

The median plasma gelsolin level (74.9 mg/l; 57.5–98.8 mg/l) was significantly lower in patients (p < 0.001) compared to the control (801.5 mg/l; 225–1008.3 mg/) (Fig. 1). The optimal cut-off level of plasma gelsolin level associated SLE disease was ≤ 152.6 mg/l, (88% sensitivity and 90% specificity; p < 0.001).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Plasma gelsolin level in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients and controls

The median plasma gelsolin level was significantly lower in patients with LN (49.3 mg/l; 40.8–61.9 mg/l) than in those without (86.3 mg/l; 74.8–103.8 mg/l) (p < 0.001). The median level was highly significantly lower in LN patients class III and class IV LN (43.6 mg/l; 36.2–47.7 mg/l) (42.3 mg/l; 14.2–57.5 mg/l) in comparison to non-renal patients (86.3 mg/l; 74.8–103.8 mg/l) (p = 0.001) while it was significantly lower in LN patients class II LN (61.9 mg/l; 49.3–74.9 mg/l) in comparison to non-renal patients (p = 0.049). Non-significant differences were found among classes II, III, and IV LN (p = 1).

The median plasma gelsolin level was significantly lower in patients with musculoskeletal manifestations (69.4 mg/l; 46.5–83.2 mg/l) than in cases without (94 mg/l; 70.1–482.1 mg/l) (p = 0.003). Plasma gelsolin values were comparable between those with and without skin, cardiac, or pulmonary manifestations (p = 0.07, p = 0.79, and p = 0.36 respectively). The median plasma gelsolin level was significantly lower in patients with high and very high activity compared to those with a low/moderate grades (p = 0.007 and p < 0.001 respectively).

There was a significant negative correlation between gelsolin level with urinary protein/24 h (r = − 0.39, p = 0.004), anti-dsDNA antibodies level (r = − 0.63, p < 0.001), SLEDAI (r = − 0.79, p < 0.001), and SDI (r = − 0.74, p < 0.001) (Fig. 2). The relation to age (r = 0.13, p = 0.38), disease duration (r = − 0.19, p = 0.18), and other laboratory parameters was insignificant. On regression analysis, plasma gelsolin and anti-ds DNA were found to be good predictors of LN (Table 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Correlation of plasma gelsolin with the systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index (SLEDAI) and SLE damage index (SDI) in SLE patients

Table 2 Logistic regression analysis for the predictors of renal affection in systemic lupus erythematosus patients

Plasma gelsolin level (≤ 81.1 mg/l) had a significant predictive value in the differentiation of high/very high disease activity grade from low/moderate grades (p < 0.001) with sensitivity 78.1% and specificity 77.8%. At a level of ≤ 78.95 mg/l, it had a significant predictive value of renal affection with 100% sensitivity and 71.9% specificity (p < 0.001). However, at an anti-ds DNA level ≥ 54 IU/ml the prediction of renal affection showed a sensitivity of 88.9% and specificity 59.4% (p = 0.004) (Table 3, Fig. 3).

Table 3 Plasma gelsolin level versus anti-double-stranded deoxyribonucleic acid (anti-dsDNA) in the prediction of renal affection in systemic lupus erythematosus patients
Fig. 3
figure 3

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of plasma glesolin level versus anti-double-stranded deoxyribonucleic acid (anti-ds DNA) in the prediction of renal affection in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients

Discussion

SLE is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease associated with various immunological events, characterized by a wide range of clinical manifestations with unpredictable flares and remissions that usually end by permanent injury [21]. In Egypt, SLE had a wide variety of clinical and immunological manifestations comparable to other nations and disparity across the country [22]. Assessment of renal function in SLE patients is imperative because early detection and management of renal involvement can essentially improve renal outcome [23]. The discovery, development, and validation of novel biomarkers which can expect clinical outcomes is a significant mission, particularly in SLE patients who develop heterogeneous clinical manifestations and must begin aggressive therapies [24].

Plasma gelsolin is one of the most important actin-binding proteins in the actin-clearing system that plays important roles in body protection and internal environment balance. Plasma gelsolin has been pronounced to play vital roles in serious situations, such as acute inflammation, trauma, burns, and sepsis [25]. The depletion of gelsolin during the rapid increase of globular and filamentous actin in the clearance cycle is a possible mechanism for the reduction of plasma gelsolin levels in severe diseases [26]. In addition, decreased plasma gelsolin levels in the circulation have been reported in chronic inflammatory diseases [27].

In this study, the plasma gelsolin was significantly lower in patients compared to control and this result coincided with the study of Parra et al. [28] and Mitto et al. [29]. In addition, Hu et al. [26] demonstrated that plasma gelsolin levels in patients with SLE and RA were significantly decreased compared to controls. This was also observed in the study of Osborn et al. [30] who observed that the mean circulating plasma gelsolin levels were significantly lower in patients with RA. Esawy et al. [30] demonstrated that plasma gelsolin levels were decreased in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients compared to the controls, while Haung et al. [31] found that the expression level of gelsolin in both serum and whole blood cells was decreased in primary Sjogren’s syndrome patients.

In this work, the median plasma gelsolin level was significantly lower in patients with renal and with musculoskeletal manifestations than in those without. There were no significant differences according to the presence and absence of skin, cardiac, or pulmonary manifestations. Also, there was an insignificant relation of plasma gelsolin levels with the patients’ ages, disease duration, and other laboratory parameters.

There were significant negative correlations of plasma gelsolin level with anti-dsDNA antibodies titers, SLEDAI and SDI. In agreement, Parra et al. [28] demonstrated that plasma gelsolin decreased in SLE patients when they developed a clinical flare. Hu et al. [26], showed a significant negative correlation between plasma gelsolin levels and SLEDAI. Meanwhile, they found no correlation between plasma gelsolin levels and RA disease activity. Also, Osborn et al. [32] documented the lack of a correlation between plasma gelsolin levels and disease activity in RA. This suggested the potential clinical application of plasma gelsolin in SLE diagnosis and disease activity evaluation. Esawy et al. [30] notified that a significant negative correlation between plasma gelsolin and PsA activity was detected. The median of plasma gelsolin level was significantly lower in SLE patients with a high/very high activity compared to those with low /moderate grade. At a level of ≤ 81.1 mg/l, there was a significant predictive value differentiating high/very high disease activity from low/moderate.

In the present study, there is a significant negative correlation between plasma gelsolin level and urinary protein/24 h in SLE patients. The median plasma gelsolin level was significantly lower in LN patients with class II, III, and IV in comparison to non-renal patients. Meanwhile, differences of plasma gelsolin levels among these histopathological classes were non-significant. The optimal cut-off point of plasma gelsolin in this study associated with the SLE disease was ≤ 152.6 mg/l with a validated sensitivity of 88% and 90% specificity. Dimitrijevic et al. [33] demonstrated that plasma gelsolin deposits were detected and varied in samples with significant association between these deposits and LN morphologic classifications indicating their potential biological marker value in LN severity and glomerular injury.

In the current work, it was found that plasma gelsolin and anti-ds DNA antibodies were good predictors of renal affection. Plasma gelsolin level (≤ 78.95 mg/l) significantly predicted renal affection with 100% sensitivity and 71.9% specificity, while anti-dsDNA titer (≥ 54 IU/ml) would predict with 88.9% sensitivity and 59.4% specificity. Misra et al. [34] declared that plasma gelsolin may be better used as a severity biomarker for the evaluation of glomerulonephritis than anti-dsDNA. The general existence of plasma gelsolin deposits in patients with LN morphologic classification I to V indicated that plasma gelsolin should be better used as a biomarker for LN disease activity rather than a specific diagnosis index. All these pieces of evidence indicate that plasma gelsolin might be used as an inflammatory marker.

Among the study limitations is the lack of full information about the anti-phospholipid status and medications received by the patients. Further larger-scale longitudinal studies are warranted to explain role of gelsolin in SLE pathogenesis and treatment outcomes. Additional work can consider gelsolin deposits in renal tissue in parallel with plasma. More studies can focus on the reversal of plasma gelsolin reduction which may be a new therapeutic target for SLE patients.

Conclusion

A decreased plasma gelsolin level was associated with clinical disease activity in SLE patients. It was well related to SLE disease activity and severity. Plasma gelsolin had a high sensitivity and specificity associated with SLE disease as well as a high predictive value for renal affection. Gelsolin level was comparable to anti-ds DNA titre as predictors of renal affection. Plasma gelsolin might be used as a biological marker for SLE and predictive biological marker for lupus nephritis.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

SLE:

Systemic lupus erythematosus

SLEDAI:

SLE Disease Activity Index

SDI:

SLE Damage Index

LN:

Lupus nephritis

SLICC/ACR score:

Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/ACR

CBC:

Complete blood count

ESR:

Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

CRP:

C-reactive protein

ELISA:

Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay

ISN/RPS:

International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society

References

  1. Hefny HM, Abualfadl EM, Youssef EA, Ismail MA, Soliman TM, Ahmed AR et al (2021) Urinary epidermal growth factor as a marker for lupus nephritis: clinical, laboratory, and histopathological study. Egypt Rheumatol Rehabil 48(13). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43166-021-00063-4

  2. Abdel-Monem SM, Ganeb SS, Fawzy RM, Bendary AM, Elhawary ZN (2019) Carotid artery atherosclerosis and ECG changes in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: relation to disease activity and severity. Egypt Rheumatol Rehabil 46:71–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Liu G, Wang H, Le J, Lan L, Xu Y, Yang Y et al (2019) Early-stage predictors for treatment responses in patients with active lupus nephritis. Lupus 28(3):283–289

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brugos B, Kiss E, Szodoray P, Szegedi G, Zeher M (2006) Retrospective analysis of patients with lupus nephritis: Data from a large clinical immunological centrein Hungary. Scand J Immunol 64(4):433–437

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zappitelli M, Duffy CM, Bernard C, Gupta IR (2008) Evaluation of activity, chronicity and tubulointerstitial indices for childhood lupus nephritis. Pediatr Nephrol 23(1):83–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mosca M, Van Vollenhoven R (2013) New drugs in systemic lupus erythematosus: when to start and when to stop. Clin Exp Rheumatol 31(4 Suppl. 78):S82–S85

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Brunner HI, Bennett MR, Mina R, Suzuki M, Petri M, Kiani AN et al (2012) Association of non-invasively measured renal protein biomarkers with histologic features of lupus nephritis. Arthritis Rheum 64(8):2687–2697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Feldt J, Schicht M, Garreis F, Welss J, Schneider UW, Paulsen F (2019) Structure, regulation and related diseases of the actin binding protein gelsolin. Expert Rev Mol Med 20:e7. https://doi.org/10.1017/erm.2018.7 PMID: 30698126

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bucki R, Levental I, Kulakowska A, Janmey PA (2008) Plasma gelsolin: function, prognostic value, and potential therapeutic use. Curr Protein Pept Sci 9(6):541–551

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Silacci P, Mazzolai L, Gauci C, Stergiopulos N, Yin HL, Hayoz D (2004) Gelsolin superfamily proteins: key regulators of cellular functions. Cell Mol Life Sci 61(19–20):2614–2623

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Huang LF, Yao YM, Li JF, Dong N, Liu C, Yu Y et al (2011) Reduction of plasma gelsolin levels correlates with development of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and fatal outcome in burn patients. PLoS One 6(11):e25748

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. DiNubile MJ (2008) Plasma gelsolin as a biomarker of inflammation. Arthritis Res Ther 10(6):124

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Li Chun HK, Schob S, Zeller M, Pulli B, Ali M, Wang C et al (2015) Gelsolin decreases actin toxicity and inflammation in murine multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimmunol 287:36–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Baig RM, Mahjabeen I, Sabir M, Masood N, Ali K, Malik FA et al (2013) Mutational spectrum of Gelsolin and its down regulation is associated with breast cancer. Dis Markers 34(2):71–80

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheng Y, Hu X, Liu C, Chen M, Wang J, Gao F et al (2017) Gelsolin inhibits the inflammatory process induced by LPS. Cell Physiol Biochem 41(1):205–212

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Peddada N, Sagar A, Ashish GR (2012) Plasma gelsolin: a general prognostic marker of health. Med Hypotheses 78(2):203–210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Aringer M, Costenbader K, Daikh D, Brinks R, Mosca M, Goldman RR (2019) 2019 European League against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 78(9):1151–1159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gladman DD, Ibanez D, Urowitz MB (2002) Systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index 2000. J Rheumatol 29(2):288–291

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ghazali WSW, Daud SMM, Mohammad N, Wong KK (2018) SLICC damage index score in systemic lupus erythematosus patients and its associated factors. Medicine 97(42):e12787

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Markowitz GS, D'agati VD (2007) The ISN/RPS 2003 classification of lupus nephritis: an assessment at 3 years. Kidney Int 71(6):491–495

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mohamed DF, AB AA, Hassan SA, Shedid NH, El-Owaidy RH, Teama MA (2018) Juvenile lupus: Different clinical and serological presentations compared to adult lupus in Egypt. Egypt Rheumatol 40(1):55–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gheita TA, Noor RA, Abualfadl E, Abousehly OS, El-Gazzar II, Egyptian College of Rheumatology (ECR) SLE Study Group (2021) Adult systemic lupus erythematosus in Egypt: The nation-wide spectrum of 3661 patients and world-wide standpoint. Lupus 30(9):1526–1535

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Abdelazeem ME, Abdelhaleem MI, Mohamed RA et al (2021) The role of Dickkopf-1 as a biomarker in systemic lupus erythematosus and active lupus nephritis. Egypt Rheumatol Rehabil 48:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43166-021-00064-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Batool S, Ahmad NM, Saeed MA, Farman S (2016) Pattern of initial clinical manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus in a tertiary care hospital. Pak J Med Sci 32(5):1066–1070

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Hu Y, Chen T, Liu S, Liu B, Meng H, Zhang L et al (2016) Gelsolin deposits in renal tissues of the patients with lupus nephritis. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 9:5413–5420

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hu Y, Li H, Li WH, Meng HX, Fan YZ, Li WJ et al (2013) The value of decreased plasma gelsolin levels in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis in diagnosis and disease activity evaluation. Lupus 22(14):1455–1461

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Piktel E, Levental I, Durnaś B, Janmey PA, Bucki R (2018) Plasma Gelsolin: Indicator of Inflammation and Its Potential as a Diagnostic Tool and Therapeutic Target. Int J Mol Sci 19(9):2516

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Parra S, Heras M, Herrero P, Amigó N, Garcés E, Girona J et al (2020) Gelsolin: a new biomarker of disease activity in SLE patients associated with HDL-c. Rheumatology 59(3):650–661

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mittoo S, Gelber AC, Hitchon CA, Silverman ED, Pope JE, Fortin PR et al (2010) Clinical and serologic factors associated with lupus pleuritis. J Rheumatol 37(4):747–753

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Esawy MM, Makram WK, Albalat W, Shabana MA (2020) Plasma gelsolin levels in patients with psoriatic arthritis: a possible novel marker. Clin Rheumatol 39:1881–1888

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Huang H, Song WQ, Li Y (2021) The gelsolin level in patients with primary Sjogren's syndrome. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 25(4):2072–2078

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Osborn TM, Verdrengh M, Stossel TP, Tarkowski A, Bokarewa M (2008) Decreased levels of the gelsolin plasma isoform in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 10(5):R117

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Dimitrijević J, Dukanović L, Kovacević Z, Bogdanović R, Maksić D, Hrvacević R et al (2002) Lupus nephritis: histopathologic features, classification and histologic scoring in renal biopsy. Vojnosanit Pregl 59(6Suppl):21–31

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Misra R, Gupta R (2015) Biomarkers in lupus nephritis. Int J Rheum Dis 18(2):219–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies whether public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Idea suggestion and study design: Samia M. Abdel moneam, Amal F. Soliman and Arwa S. Amer. Data collection and analysis: Ghada M. Mosaad, Arwa S. Amer, and Seham G. Ameen. Manuscript writing and final revision: Samia M. Abdel moneam, Amal F. Soliman, Arwa S. Amer, and Ghada M. Mosaad. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arwa S. Amer.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

An informed written consent was taken from all patients and subjects’ participating in this study and the protocol was approved by the ethical committee of Benha Faculty of Medicine no. MS 11-5-2020.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mosaad, G.M., Abdel moneam, S.M., Soliman, A.F. et al. Implication of plasma gelsolin in systemic lupus erythematosus patients. Egypt Rheumatol Rehabil 49, 1 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43166-021-00103-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43166-021-00103-z

Keywords