Investigates proteomic differences in adults with Fontan circulation, suggesting potential therapeutic targets.
BACKGROUND: The Fontan circulation is associated with unique physiology resulting from surgical and hemodynamic alterations. Limited data exist on the circulating proteome in adults with a Fontan circulation. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to understand how the Fontan circulation impacts the circulating plasma proteome, potentially identifying molecular targets to prevent or treat Fontan-associated complications. METHODS: We enrolled 162 adults with a Fontan circulation and 36 age/sex-matched control participants without known cardiovascular disease: 192 participants (161 = Fontan, 31 = Control) had 975 proteins measured via Olink proteomics platform (proximity extension assay) and 85 participants (72 = Fontan, 13 = Control) had 1,265 proteins measured by SomaLogic proteomics platform (single-stranded DNA aptamers). RESULTS: Overall, 331 (33.9%) and 501 (39.6%) proteins measured via Olink proteomics platform and SomaLogic proteomics platform, respectively, were differentially expressed with an age- and sex-adjusted P < 0.05 between the Fontan and control groups. Among the 491 proteins measured by both platforms, 5 proteins were consistently among the 30 most differentially expressed proteins between Fontan and control for both: angiopoietin-2, contactin-5, insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7, thrombospondin-2, and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase type 5. Proteomic signatures in the Fontan circulation were associated with cardiac and renal perturbations, even before clinical evidence of end-organ failure. CONCLUSIONS: The plasma proteome in adults with a Fontan circulation is markedly different from the proteome of biventricular controls, with widespread perturbations across metabolic, inflammatory, and organ-specific pathways. This hypothesis-generating, foundational work suggests that broad-based proteomics may help identify mechanisms of compensation and deterioration in this poorly understood population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Assi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: