| Literature DB >> 26795831 |
Mark J W McPhail1, Debbie L Shawcross2, Matthew R Lewis3, Iona Coltart2, Elizabeth J Want3, Charalambos G Antoniades1, Kiril Veselkov3, Evangelos Triantafyllou4, Vishal Patel4, Oltin Pop4, Maria Gomez-Romero3, Michael Kyriakides3, Rabiya Zia3, Robin D Abeles4, Mary M E Crossey2, Wayel Jassem4, John O'Grady4, Nigel Heaton4, Georg Auzinger4, William Bernal4, Alberto Quaglia4, Muireann Coen3, Jeremy K Nicholson3, Julia A Wendon4, Elaine Holmes5, Simon D Taylor-Robinson2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Predicting survival in decompensated cirrhosis (DC) is important in decision making for liver transplantation and resource allocation. We investigated whether high-resolution metabolic profiling can determine a metabolic phenotype associated with 90-day survival.Entities:
Keywords: Acute on chronic liver failure; Metabolic profiling; Metabolomics; Metabonomics; Outcome prediction; Personalised medicine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26795831 PMCID: PMC4876170 DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.01.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Hepatol ISSN: 0168-8278 Impact factor: 25.083
Demographic, biochemical and physiological details from the derivation study population.
p values – χ2 test for categorical variables, Mann Whitney U test for continuous variables. Continuous data given as median (range). HE, hepatic encephalopathy; INR, International Normalised Ratio; WCC, white cell count; CPS, Child-Pugh score; MELD, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease; CLIF-SOFA, Chronic Liver Failure Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; UKELD, United Kingdom End-Stage Liver Disease.
Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) observed metabolites with intensity (mean (SD), arbitrary units) differences associated with decompensated cirrhosis
The assignment numbers as per the annotation in Fig. 1. Nuclear magnetic resonance peak multiplicity – s (singlet), d (doublet), t (triplet), m (multiplet), dd (doublet of doublets). LDL, low density lipoproteins; p values one way ANOVA with multiple comparison correction.
Fig. 1H NMR and UPLC-MS plasma profile models. These multivariate models demonstrate discrimination of patients with DC who survive or die (A–D) 1H NMR data. (A) Principal components analysis (PCA) scores plot 3 component model R2X = 0.75 Q2 = 0.54. (B) Orthogonal projection least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) scores plot (1 + 2 + 0) R2X = 0.57 R2Y = 0.46 Q2 = 0.25. (C) permutation analysis (D) S-line loading plot (E–H) UPLC-MS positive mode data (E) PCA scores plot (3 components) R2X = 0.54 Q2 = 0.42 (F) OPLS-DA scores plot (1 + 2 + 0) R2X = 0.52 R2Y = 0.67 Q2 = 0.42 (G) permutation analysis (H) S-plot loadings. 1H NMR peak annotations are as per Table 2. (This figure appears in colour on the web.)
Fig. 2Comparison of outcome prediction performance by Area Under Receiver Operating Curve (AUROC) analysis. AUROC comparisons of CPMG (Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill), NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance), MELD (model for end-stage liver disease), CLIF-SOFA (chronic liver failure sequential organ failure assessment), UPLC-MS (ultra-performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry). (A) Derivation Cohort CPMG NMR profile (AUROC 0.95 (0.90–1), sensitivity 100%, specificity 79%, p <0.001); CLIF-SOFA – AUROC 0.87 (0.77–0.93) sensitivity 78%, specificity 91%, p <0.001); MELD – AUROC 0.81 (0.66–0.96), sensitivity 78%, specificity 86%, p <0.001); Child-Pugh Score – AUROC 0.87 (0.76–0.98), sensitivity 83%, specificity 78%, p <0.001. (B) Validation Cohort CPMG NMR profile (AUROC 0.96 (0.90–1), sensitivity 98%, specificity 84%, p <0.001); CLIF-SOFA – AUROC 0.93 (0.86–0.99) sensitivity 74%, specificity 100%, p <0.001); MELD – AUROC 0.87 (0.66–0.96), sensitivity 89%, specificity 79%, p <0.001); Child-Pugh Score – AUROC 0.87 (0.76–0.98), sensitivity 80%, specificity 79%, p <0.001. (This figure appears in colour on the web.)
The putative identification (ID) of UPLC-TOF-MS measured metabolites associated with cirrhosis and with poor prognosis and intensity differences between classes (mean (SD), arbotrary units).
LPC, lysophosphatidylcholine; M-H protonated adduct; M-Na sodiated adduct; PC, phosphatidylcholine, choline; PG, phosphatidylglycerol; PI phosphatidylinositol, PS, phosphatyidylserine; metabolite identification superscripted-M-MS/MS, S-standard, A-accurate mass; p values one way ANOVA with multiple comparison correction.
Fig. 3Analysis of markers of cell death in peripheral blood, across the liver and in correlation with metabolic profiling. (A–C) Comparison of markers of cell death in peripheral blood on day 1. DC, Decompensated cirrhosis; CLD, chronic stable liver disease; HC, healthy control. Kruskall Wallis test with Dunns test for multiple comparisons (∗p <0.05, ∗∗p <0.01, ∗∗∗p <0.001, ∗∗∗∗p <0.0001) data are expressed as mean(SEM). (D–F) Total and caspase cleaved cytokeratin-18 levels measured by ELISA from samples taken from the hepatic vein (HV), portal vein (PV) and systemic artery (ART) at the time of liver transplant prior to hepatectomy in n = 7 patients. (D) M30 levels demonstrating no gradient (E) M65 levels demonstrating positive gradient between portal and hepatic vein (E) M30/M65 ratio demonstrating negative ratio between portal and hepatic veins. All M30 and M65 levels are in IU/L (logarithmic scale for D-F, Paired t test n.s., non-significant ∗p <0.05). (G-I) OPLS modelling of 1H NMR plasma of patients with DC and M65 levels (G) OPLS model (1 + 1 + 0 components, R2X = 0.39 R2Y = 0.56 Q2 = 0.27 CV-ANOVA p = 0.004) (H) permutation test demonstrating validity of model (I) OPLS S-line loading plot demonstrating correlation with M65 levels and 1H NMR measured metabolites in particular LDL, PC (negative correlation), alanine, methionine, phenylalanine and tyrosine (positive correlation; peak annotations as for Fig. 1 and Table 2). (This figure appears in colour on the web.)
Fig. 4Histological analysis of liver tissue. These demonstrate apoptosis in explanted liver tissue from control and DC cases. (A) Representative micrograph showing a homogeneous cytoplasmic pattern in a cell morphologically similar to acidophilic bodies from H&E stains, in explanted control liver tissue (∗ intense coarse granular cytoplasmic staining pattern of hepatocytes regarded as non-specific staining and excluded from the quantitative assessment). (B) Representative micrograph demonstrating homogeneous cytoplasmic staining for M30 in cells with morphologic features suggestive of apoptotic bodies (C), on a biopsy from a patient with post-transplant recurrent HCV infection. (D–G) Representative micrographs of M30+ apoptotic cells and acidophilic bodies on H&E stain in the control and DC groups showing an increased numbers in the latter. (H) Enumeration of apoptotic cells in control (n = 4) and DC groups (n = 6), as assessed by enzymatic immunohistochemistry and H&E staining. (This figure appears in colour on the web.)
The comparison of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), Child-Pugh Score (CPS) and Chronic Liver Failure Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (CLIF-SOFA), CLIF Acute Decompensation (CLIF AD) and CLIF Acute on Chronic Liver failure (CLIF-C ACLF) for prediction of hospital survival in patients with decompensated cirrhosis in comparison with Y-predicted metabolic profiling strategies via NMR and UPLC-TOF-MS.
LR, likelihood ratio; MELD, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease; CPS, Child-Pugh Score; CLIF-SOFA, Chronic Liver Failure Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; CPMG, Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill; NMRS, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy; UPLC-MS ESI, Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry Electrospray Ionisation; Δ1st validation cohort comparison.