The mean bone pyrophosphate was 0.360 +/- 0.15 mg/g in 8 controls and 1.22 +/- 1.39 mg/g bone in 27 uremic patients (P less than 0.0025). 13 of the 27 uremic patients had bone pyrophosphate levels greater than 2 SD above control values. The ash content of uremic bones with increased pyrophosphate levels (group II) was 56 +/- 9% as compared to 64 +/- 2% in control bones (P less than 0.01) and 60 +/- 7% in uremic bones having normal pyrophosphate levels (P less than 0.1) (group I). The magnesium content of bones in group II was 338 +/- 47 as compared to 211 +/- 13 (P less than 0.0005) in the controls and 294 +/- 73 mmol/kg ash (P less than 0.05) in group I. In group II, but not group I, there was a significant inverse correlation between duration of dialysis and percent bone ash (r = -0.59) (P less than 0.05). A definite relationship existed between elevated bone pyrophosphate levels and soft tissue calcification. In group II the mean pulmonary calcium content was 530 +/- 459 as compared to 32 +/- 26 mmol/kg/ash in group I (P less than 0.0025). All patients with a bone pyrophosphate level greater than 1.4 mg/g bone had extensive pulmonary calcification. It is concluded that the excess bone pyrophosphate present in some uremic patients is either deposited in the apatite crystal in the transphosphorylated form or else as the magnesium salt since the pyrophosphate is resistant to pyrophosphatase and surface adsorption of pyrophosphate is not altered by the increased bone pyrophosphate levels. The excess bone pyrophosphate could disturb bone calcification mechanisms in uremic patients. The association between increased bone pyrophosphate and soft tissue calcification suggests that the disordered pyrophosphate metabolism may be important in the pathogenesis of extraosseous calcification.
A C Alfrey, C C Solomons
Usage data is cumulative from April 2024 through April 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 144 | 1 |
55 | 20 | |
Scanned page | 237 | 5 |
Citation downloads | 53 | 0 |
Totals | 489 | 26 |
Total Views | 515 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.