BACKGROUND: Gradient gel electrophoresis (GGE) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy are both widely accepted methods for measuring LDL and HDL particle size. However, whether or not GGE- or NMR-measured LDL or HDL particle size predicts coronary heart disease (CHD) risk to a similar extent is currently unknown. METHODS: We used GGE and NMR to measure LDL and HDL particle size in a nested case-control study of 1025 incident cases of CHD and 1915 controls from the EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition)-Norfolk study. The study sample included apparently healthy men and women age 45-79 years followed for an average of 6 years. RESULTS: Pearson correlation coefficients showed that the overall agreement between NMR and GGE was better for the measurement of HDL size (r = 0.78) than for LDL size (r = 0.47). The odds ratio for future CHD among participants in the bottom tertile of LDL size (smallest LDL particles) was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.12-1.63) for GGE and 1.74 (1.41-2.15) for NMR. For HDL size, these respective odds ratios were 1.41 (1.16-1.72) and 1.85 (1.47-2.32). After adjustment for potential confounders, the relationship between small LDL or HDL particles and CHD was no longer significant, irrespective of the method. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective population study, we found that the relationships between NMR-measured LDL and HDL sizes and CHD risk were slightly higher than those obtained with GGE.
BACKGROUND: Gradient gel electrophoresis (GGE) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy are both widely accepted methods for measuring LDL and HDL particle size. However, whether or not GGE- or NMR-measured LDL or HDL particle size predicts coronary heart disease (CHD) risk to a similar extent is currently unknown. METHODS: We used GGE and NMR to measure LDL and HDL particle size in a nested case-control study of 1025 incident cases of CHD and 1915 controls from the EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition)-Norfolk study. The study sample included apparently healthy men and women age 45-79 years followed for an average of 6 years. RESULTS: Pearson correlation coefficients showed that the overall agreement between NMR and GGE was better for the measurement of HDL size (r = 0.78) than for LDL size (r = 0.47). The odds ratio for future CHD among participants in the bottom tertile of LDL size (smallest LDL particles) was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.12-1.63) for GGE and 1.74 (1.41-2.15) for NMR. For HDL size, these respective odds ratios were 1.41 (1.16-1.72) and 1.85 (1.47-2.32). After adjustment for potential confounders, the relationship between small LDL or HDL particles and CHD was no longer significant, irrespective of the method. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective population study, we found that the relationships between NMR-measured LDL and HDL sizes and CHD risk were slightly higher than those obtained with GGE.
Authors: Carlos Lorenzo; Sara Hartnett; Anthony J Hanley; Marian J Rewers; Lynne E Wagenknecht; Andrew J Karter; Steven M Haffner Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-02-28 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Mathias Cardner; Mustafa Yalcinkaya; Sandra Goetze; Edlira Luca; Miroslav Balaz; Monika Hunjadi; Johannes Hartung; Andrej Shemet; Nicolle Kränkel; Silvija Radosavljevic; Michaela Keel; Alaa Othman; Gergely Karsai; Thorsten Hornemann; Manfred Claassen; Gerhard Liebisch; Erick Carreira; Andreas Ritsch; Ulf Landmesser; Jan Krützfeldt; Christian Wolfrum; Bernd Wollscheid; Niko Beerenwinkel; Lucia Rohrer; Arnold von Eckardstein Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2020-01-16
Authors: Herman J Kempen; Dorota B Schranz; Bela F Asztalos; James Otvos; Elias Jeyarajah; Denise Drazul-Schrader; Heidi L Collins; Steven J Adelman; Peter L J Wijngaard Journal: J Lipids Date: 2014-11-12
Authors: Zsuzsanna Kuklenyik; Jeffery I Jones; Michael S Gardner; David M Schieltz; Bryan A Parks; Christopher A Toth; Jon C Rees; Michael L Andrews; Kayla Carter; Antony K Lehtikoski; Lisa G McWilliams; Yulanda M Williamson; Kevin P Bierbaum; James L Pirkle; John R Barr Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 3.240