Affiliation:
1. Veterinary clinic «Vellvet»
Abstract
The success of therapeutic measures depends on the availability of the modern methods of diagnostics to practitioners, understanding by them the advantages and existing limitations of each method. Biological markers (BMs) are widely used in scientific and practical medicine as a method for diagnosing the presence or absence of disease, the response to treatment, the reaction of organism to an intervention or therapeutic manipulation, for the disease progress prognosis. BMs provide a unique opportunity for early minimally invasive diagnostics in oncology, nephrology, endocrinology and other specialities. In spite of certain progress much less biological markers are used in veterinary medicine compared to human medicine. Some BMs are not relevant for veterinary medicine others are not studied enough. It may take a very long time from the moment of discovering a molecule potentially significant as a BM to its implementation into practice, or this may never happen at all. This work is aimed at reviewing the available data on the BMs most widely used in veterinary medicine. In the review the data referring to the principles of finding new BMs, the stages of validation, as well as the factors hindering wide implementation of BMs into clinical laboratory diagnostics was systemised. The information about the BMs currently used in the various fields of clinical practice and the BMs panels, was presented. 46 foreign and domestic veterinary and biomedical publications for the last 10 years were analysed.
Publisher
FSFEI HE Don State Technical University
Reference14 articles.
1. –6. Vide supra.
2. Don E. S. Biomarkery v medicine: poisk, vybor, izuchenie i validaciya [Biomarkers in medicine: search, selection, study and validation] / E. S. Don i dr. // Klinicheskaya laboratornaya diagnostika. – 2017. – № 62 (1).
3. –17. Vide supra.
4. Imyanitov E. N. Spornye aspekty HER2-diagnostiki [Controversial aspects of HER2 diagnostics] / E. N. Imyanitov // Sovremennaya onkologiya. – SanktPeterburg. – 2010. – № 3. – T. 12. – S. 55
5. –27. Vide supra.