Why the study?
HFpEF and HFrEF have distinct as well as comparable pathophysiologies and diverse therapeutic responses, prompting an investigation into pathobiochemical signalling pathways and biomarkers using a broad proteomic approach.
Does plasma proteomic profiling identify distinct biomarker profiles and signalling pathways in HFpEF and HFrEF compared to healthy controls?
Does plasma proteomic profiling identify distinct biomarker profiles and signalling pathways in HFpEF and HFrEF compared to healthy controls?
Proteomic profiling reveals distinct biomarker signatures and signalling pathways for HFpEF and HFrEF, highlighting potential new diagnostic and therapeutic targets such as TFF3 and serine protease 27.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Distinct proteomic signatures in HFpEF and HFrEF warrant validation as biomarkers; this observational finding leaves open their clinical utility.
AIMS: Chronic heart failure (HF) is a common disease and one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are different diseases with distinct as well as comparable pathophysiologies and diverse responses to therapeutic agents. We aimed to identify possible pathobiochemical signalling pathways and biomarkers in HFpEF and HFrEF by using a broad proteomic approach. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 180 biomarkers in the plasma of a representative subgroup (71 years old) of HFpEF (70% female) with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 50% and HFrEF (18% female) with an LVEF ≤ 40% patients (n = 127) from the Prevalence and Clinical Course of Diastolic Dysfunction and Diastolic Heart Failure (DIAST-CHF) trial were examined and compared with a healthy control group (n = 40; 48% female). We were able to identify 35 proteins that were expressed significantly different in both HF groups compared with the control group. We determine 29 unique proteins expressed in HFpEF and 33 unique proteins in HFrEF. Significantly up-regulated trefoil factor 3 (TFF3) and down-regulated contactin-1 could be identified as previously unknown biomarkers for HF. However, TFF3 is also a predictive factor for the occurrence of a cardiovascular event in HFpEF patients. In HFpEF, serine protease 27 was found at reduced levels for the first time, which could offer a new therapeutic target. Additionally, network analyses showed a special role of platelet-derived growth factor subunit A, Dickkopf-related protein 1, and tumour necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 6 in HFpEF patients, whereas perlecan and junctional adhesion molecule A stood out in the HFrEF group. Overall, signalling pathways of metabolic processes, cellular stress, and iron metabolism seemed to be important for HFrEF, whereas for HFpEF, oxygen stress, haemostasis, cell renewal, cell migration, and cell proliferation are in the foreground. CONCLUSIONS: The identified proteins and signalling pathways offer new therapeutic and diagnostic approaches for patients with chronic HF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eidizadeh et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: