| Literature DB >> 31374067 |
Zhenhua Ma1,2, Xiaomei Wang1, Peiyuan Yin3, Ruihong Wu1, Lina Zhou3, Guowang Xu3, Junqi Niu1.
Abstract
This study aims to determine the non-invasive, reliable and sensitive biochemical parameters for the diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury (DILI).Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) and selected reaction monitoring (SRM) were used to profile the serum metabolome and quantify 15 targeted bile acid metabolites, respectively, in samples obtained from 38 DILI patients and 30 healthy controls.A comparison of the resulting serum metabolome profiles of the study participants revealed significant differences between DILI patients and healthy controls. Specifically, serum palmitic acid, taurochenodeoxycholic acid, glycocholic acid (GCA), and tauroursodeoxycholic acid (TUDCA) levels were significantly higher, and serum lysophosphatidylethanolamine levels were significantly lower in DILI patients vs healthy controls (P < .001). Furthermore, the SRM assay of bile acids revealed that the increase in GCA, taurocholic acid (TCA), TUDCA, glycochenodeoxycholic acid (GCDCA), glycochenodeoxycholic sulfate (GCDCS), and taurodeoxycholic acid (TDCA) corresponded to a higher degree of liver damage. These results also indicate that serum concentrations of chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA), deoxycholic acid (DCA) and lithocholic acid (LCA) were significantly lower in patients with severe DILI, when compared to healthy controls, and that this decrease was closely correlated to the severity of liver damage.Taken together, these results demonstrate that bile acids could serve as potential biomarkers for the early diagnosis and severity of DILI.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31374067 PMCID: PMC6708818 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000016717
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.817
Characteristics of the DILI patients enrolled in the metabolic profiling study.
Patient medication histories.
Figure 1The multivariate statistical analysis of serum profiling data generated in positive ion mode. (A) Plots of the principal component analysis (PCA) scores of peaks detected in the positive ion mode. 1: healthy control; 2: DILI; 3: quality control. (B) Scatter plots of the partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) with a positive ion model of serum obtained from patients with DILI and healthy controls. 1: healthy control; 2: DILI. (C) Validation plot of the original PLS-DA with a positive ion model, strongly indicating that the original model was valid and revealed no signs of overfitting. The permutation test was repeated for 200 times in the cross-validation plot. (D) The plots of PCA scores of the peaks detected in the positive ion mode using serum samples obtained from patients in the mild and severe injury groups. 1: healthy control; 2: mild DILI; 3: severe DILI.
Figure 2The multivariate statistical analysis of serum profiling data generated in the negative ion mode. (A) Plots of PCA scores of peaks detected in the negative ion mode. 1: healthy control; 2: DILI; 3: quality control. (B) Scatter plots of the PLS-DA with a negative ion model of serum obtained from patients with DILI and healthy controls. 1: healthy control; 2: DILI. (C) Validation plot of the original PLS-DA with a negative ion model, strongly indicating that the original model is valid and shows no signs of overfitting. The permutation test was repeated for 200 times in the cross-validation plot. (D) The plots of PCA scores of the peaks detected in the negative ion mode for serum obtained from patients in the mild and severe injury groups. 1: healthy control; 2: mild DILI; 3: severe DILI.
Potential serum biomarkers for DILI patients compared to healthy controls in positive and negative ions model.
Figure 3Quantification of targeted bile acids in DILI patients and healthy controls. (A) The plot of PCA scores with the unit variance scaling of all variables. DILI (blue box), healthy controls (green dot), and QC (red triangle). 1: healthy control; 2: DILI; 3: QC. (B) Scatter plots of the PLS-DA of serum obtained from DILI patients and healthy controls. 1: healthy control; 2: DILI. (C) The permutation test was repeated for 200 times in the cross-validation plot. (D) The plots of PLS for serum obtained from patients in the mild and severe injury groups. 1: healthy control; 2: mild DILI; 3: severe DILI.
Comparative analysis of bile acid levels in DILI patients in the mild and severe injury groups, and in healthy controls.
Figure 4Comparative analysis of alterations in serum bile acid levels in patients in the mild and severe injury groups, and in healthy controls. (A) GCA; (B) TCA; (C) TUDCA; (D) GCDCA; (E) GCDCS; (F) TDCA; (G) DCA; (H) CDCA; and (I) LCA; ∗P < .05, ∗∗P < .001, and ∗∗∗P < .0001; ns, not significant.
Figure 5Analysis of the specificity and sensitivity of bile acids in differentiating DILI patients from healthy controls. (A) Data were presented as the area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). GCA (AUC = 0.978 [0.974, 0.867]), TCA (AUC = 0.985 [0.947, 0.933]), TUDCA (AUC = 0.909 [0.868, 0.767]), GCDCA (AUC = 0.954 [0.921, 0.933]), GCDCS (AUC = 0.946 [0.868, 1.000]), TDCA (AUC = 0.976 [0.921, 0.933]), ALT (AUC = 0.97 [0.95, 1.00], AST (AUC = 0.97 [0.89, 1.00], GGT (AUC = 0.97 [0.95, 0.93]), ALP (AUC = 0.85 [0.76, 1.00]), TBIL (AUC = 0.91 [0.79, 0.97]), DBIL (AUC = 0.93 [0.84,0.97]), and RUCAM score (AUC = 1.00 [1.00, 1.00]). (B) Data were presented as the AUC. DCA (AUC = 0.77 [0.68, 0.9]), LCA (AUC = 0.66 [0.61, 0.73]), CDCA (AUC = 0.67 [0.61, 0.73]).