Distinct Metabolomic Signatures in Preclinical and Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. Proportions of affected genes and sarcomere mutation-negative (SMN) individuals in the (A) Carrier and (B) HOCM groups. (C) Myocardial external efficiency (MEE) and (D) myocardial oxygen consumption normalized to tissue weight (MVO2) in Ctrls, Carriers and HOCM patients (data have been published in Guclu et al. and Parbhudayal et al. [8,15]). **** p < 0.0001, ** p < 0.01 compared to Ctrls, ## p < 0.01 compared to HOCM group, one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test.

• 

  Figure 2. Multivariate modeling. (A) Principal component analysis (PCA) for the three group-wise comparisons: Carrier vs. Ctrls, Carrier vs. HOCM patients and HOCM patients vs. Ctrls. (B) Top 30 most predictive metabolites sorted based on their relative importance in distinguishing the two groups. (C) Radar plots of the top 15 most predictive metabolites, illustrating the differences in the serum metabolite profiles between the groups.

• 

  Figure 3. Metabolites that were among the 30 most important metabolites in distinguishing the groups in the (A) Carrier vs. Ctrl and Carrier vs. HOCM comparison, (B) Carrier vs. HOCM and HOCM vs. Ctrl comparison and (C) Carrier vs. Ctrl and HOCM vs. Ctrl comparison.

• 

  Figure 4. Sensitivity and specificity curves comparing the performances of the metabolomics data and the clinical imaging data in distinguishing the groups.

• 

  Figure 5. Schematic overview of the mitochondrial electron transport chain. Some of the top 30 metabolites (highlighted in blue) could be linked to energy metabolism, as they are involved in pathways that lead to essential molecules of the electron transport chain, which are highlighted in red.