Skip to main content
Log in

A study of prolidase in mothers, their newborn babies and in non-pregnant controls

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract 

The prolidase activity in serum and in erythrocytes was measured in 28 healthy mothers and in the cord blood of their newborn babies in using a modified Chinard method. 45 healthy non-pregnant women aged between 15–36 years formed a control group. Biochemical parameters (CK, BUN, C-peptid, AFP, Uric acid) were also measured. The serum and erythrocyte prolidase activities in maternal blood were 45.8±13.4 U/L and 37.8±2.7 U/g Hb respectively. There was no significant difference in the enzyme activities between pregnant women and the control group (p>0.05). However serum and erythrocyte prolidase activity in cord blood (20.3±8.2 U/L and 31.6±7.3 U/g Hb) was significantly different when compared with control group (53.4± 14.7 U/L in serum and 42.3±10.3 U/g Hb in erythrocyte, p<0.001). There was a significant correlation between maternal and cord blood serum enzyme activity (r: 0.76 p<0.01). This correlation was also shown in erythrocyte prolidase activities of both groups (r: 0.49, p<0.05). Cord blood prolidase activity was positively correlated with birth weight (r: 0.89, p<0.01). Prolidase activity in cord blood was low even though collagen turnover is increased in fetal growth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Received: 15 June 2000 / Accepted: 4 October 2000

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Namiduru, E., Özdemir, Y., Kutlar, I. et al. A study of prolidase in mothers, their newborn babies and in non-pregnant controls. Arch Gynecol Obstet 265, 73–75 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s004040000142

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004040000142

Navigation