Preoperative myocardial expression of E3 ubiquitin ligases in aortic stenosis patients undergoing valve replacement and their association to postoperative hypertrophy.

Currently, aortic valve replacement is the only treatment capable of relieving left ventricle pressure overload in patients with severe aortic stenosis. It aims to improve cardiac function and revert hypertrophy, by triggering myocardial reverse remodeling. Despite immediately relieving afterload, reverse remodeling turns out to be extremely variable. Among other factors, the extent of reverse remodeling may depend on how well ubiquitin-proteasome system tackle hypertrophy. Therefore, we assessed tagged ubiquitin and ubiquitin ligases in the left ventricle collected from patients undergoing valve replacement and tested their association to the degree of reverse remodeling. Patients were classified according to the regression of left ventricle mass (ΔLVM) and assigned to complete (ΔLVM≥15%) or incomplete (ΔLVM≤5%) reverse remodeling groups. No direct inter-group differences were observed. Nevertheless, correlation analysis supports a fundamental role of the ubiquitin-proteasome system during reverse remodeling. Indeed, total protein ubiquitination was associated to hypertrophic indexes such as interventricular septal thickness (r = 0.55, p = 0.03) and posterior wall thickness (r = 0.65, p = 0.009). No significant correlations were observed for Muscle Ring Finger 3. Surprisingly, though, higher levels of atrogin-1 were associated to postoperative interventricular septal thickness (r = 0.71, p = 0.005). In turn, Muscle Ring Finger 1 correlated negatively with this postoperative hypertrophy marker (r = -0.68, p = 0.005), suggesting a cardioprotective role during reverse remodeling. No significant correlations were found with left ventricle mass regression, although a trend for a negative association between the ligase Murine Double Minute 2 and mass regression (r = -0.44, p = 0.10) was found. Animal studies will be necessary to understand whether this ligase is protective or detrimental. Herein, we show, for the first time, an association between the preoperative myocardial levels of ubiquitin ligases and postoperative hypertrophy, highlighting the therapeutic potential of targeting ubiquitin ligases in incomplete reverse remodeling.

Introduction

Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease in developed countries. AS is also a serious condition being associated with higher risk of adverse events such as myocardial infarction, stroke and death [1]. The severity of AS arises from the progressive thickening and narrowing of the valve. These structural changes impose chronic pressure overload that gradually increases the wall stress in left ventricle (LV). To restore or normalize wall stress, LV cardiomyocytes undergo hypertrophy. These factors collectively promote structural and functional deterioration. In untreated cases, maladaptive remodeling may converge into heart failure [2]. Therefore, AS patients require timely intervention before the myocardium can no longer reverse its pathological state. Currently, surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains as the standard therapeutic option [3].

Following AVR, patients experience an immediate relief of LV afterload, which triggers myocardial reverse remodeling (RR). This response is mainly characterized by regression of LV hypertrophy, restoration of chamber shape and a concomitant improvement of LV function [4-6]. However, the extent of RR is extremely variable. Some patients show signs of incomplete RR while others may attain complete structural and functional recovery. Systemic hypertension [7-10], diabetes mellitus [8], gender [9,11], fibrosis [12], patient-prosthesis mismatch [13] in addition to aging [14], have all been suggested to explain such a variable response.

To keep proteostasis, cardiomyocytes are harnessed with two systems, the ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS) and the autophagy pathway. These are responsible to signal and degrade worn proteins and recycle sarcomeric proteins, the main determinants of cardiac mass [15]. Particularly in what regards to UPS, the activity of E3 ubiquitin ligases is of paramount importance, as these confer substrate-specificity (reviewed in [16,17]). A growing body of evidence shows the relationship between these enzymes and cardiac disease, particularly hypertrophy. For instance, patients with compound Muscle Ring Finger (MuRF)1 deficiency and a deleterious MuRF3 missense mutation develop cardiomyopathy [18]. Similarly, MuRF1/MuRF3 double knockout mice develop extreme muscle hypertrophy [19]. Mice overexpressing atrogin-1 in the heart display a blunted hypertrophy phenotype and decreased apoptosis when subjected to pressure overload [20]. Finally, Murine Double Minute 2 (MDM2) overexpression in cardiomyocytes stimulated with pro-hypertrophic α-agonists (phenylephrine and endothelin-1) mitigates hypertrophy and inhibits the fetal gene program [21].

Thus, since hypertrophy reversal is a necessary requisite for complete RR and E3 ubiquitin ligases have been implicated in the regulation of hypertrophy, we hypothesized that preoperative LV levels of total protein ubiquitination and of the ligases MuRF1, MuRF3, atrogin-1 and MDM2 are associated with the degree of RR. Thus, we assessed the levels of the latter UPS elements in the LV of patients undergoing AVR, compared between patients with complete and incomplete RR and tested their association with postoperative clinical parameters, including LV mass regression.

Material and methods

Study design, patients selection and clinical characterization

AS patients were selected based on retrospective clinical data, and the respective myocardial samples were gathered from the local biobank. The local ethics committee approved the study protocol, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. This study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Only patients undergoing AVR with clinical predominance of AS, without severe aortic insufficiency or severe forms of other extra-aortic valve diseases and with no more than one stenotic coronary vessel were selected. Clinical evaluation of AS severity and myocardial structure and function was based on transthoracic echocardiography. Peak aortic valve velocity (Peak Ao), mean aortic transvalvular pressure gradient and indexed aortic valve area (AVAi) were derived from Doppler echocardiography. Mean pressure gradient was obtained with the modified Bernoulli equation and AVAi with the standard continuity equation. In turn, LV end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD), LV posterior wall thickness (PWT) and interventricular septal thickness (IVST) were derived from 2D-echocardiograms during diastole. Relative wall thickness (RWT) was calculated as 2 × PWT/LVEDD. Correct orientation of imaging planes, cardiac chambers dimension and function measurements were performed according to the EAE/ASE recommendations [22].

LV mass (LVM) was estimated according to the joint recommendations of the EAE and ASE using Devereux’s formula for ASE measurements in diastole: LV mass = 0.8 × (1.04 × ([LV internal dimension + PWT + IVST]3 –[LV internal dimension]3) + 0.6 g. LVM index (LVMi) was calculated according to the recent recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification [22]. LVMi greater than 115 g/m2 in men and greater than 95 g/m2 in women were considered indicative of hypertrophy.

The clinical and demographical of the final population (n = 15) is summarized in . All patients enrolled in this study were free of dilated or hypertrophic cardiomyopathies. Upon preoperative echocardiographic assessment, patients presented with a mean preoperative RWT >0.42, indicative of a more concentric remodeling, typical of pressure overload-induced myocardial remodeling. These patients showed LVEF >50% (n = 12) or had clinical indication of normal/good systolic function (n = 2). Only one patient showed a borderline LVEF (42%). Hence, the evaluation of RR was based on echocardiographic assessment of LV hypertrophy. LVM regression (%) was defined as the difference between pre- and postoperative LVMi. Patients with LVM regression (ΔLVM) ≥15% were included in the complete RR (cRR) group, while those with LVM regression ≤5% were integrated into the incomplete RR (iRR) group. Complete and incomplete RR groups were not different regarding risk factors such as age, hypertension, obesity, diabetes and smoking. All patients displayed severe or were borderline between moderate to severe AS, according to the ESC/AHA guidelines [23].

Sample collection and processing

During AVR, LV myocardial biopsies were collected and immediately frozen at -80°C. LV biopsy material consisted of endomyocardial tissue resected from the LV outflow tract (Morrow procedure) because of concomitant LV outflow tract hypertrophy. The myocardial tissue of the AS patients and from a healthy donor heart (used as technical control) were subjected to the same homogenization and protein extraction protocol. Briefly, biopsies were homogenized in RIPA buffer (40 μL/mg tissue; Thermo ScientificTM cat #89900) supplemented with a cocktail of protease inhibitors (1:100; Sigma-Aldrich® cat #8340) by mechanical disruption using a disposable tissue homogenizer. Protein-rich, debris-free supernatants were recovered after centrifugation for 30 min at 13,000 × g (4°C), aliquoted and stored in liquid nitrogen. Protein concentration was estimated with a BCA assay kit, using bovine serum albumin as standard.

Western blot experiments

Protein extracts (10 μg) were separated by SDS-PAGE on 8–16% or 4–20% (for atrogin-1 only) gradient TGX stain-free gels, essentially as described by Laemmli [24], and gels were scanned on a ChemiDoc MP imager (BioRad). Next, proteins were transferred to low fluorescence polyvinylidene difluoride membranes using BioRad’s Trans-Blot® TurboTM system with a customized setting (2.5 A, 25 V, 8 min). Transfer efficiency was evaluated by scanning the membranes and rescanning the gels. All membranes were blocked with 1% bovine serum albumin for 30 min and incubated overnight (4°C) with the primary antibodies. Following several washes with TBS-T, membranes were incubated for one hour with the respective secondary antibodies and washed again with TBS-T. compiles all the antibodies used. Chemiluminescence-based detection was carried out with an enhanced chemiluminescence system kit (Clarity MaxTM Western ECL, BioRad), using ChemiDoc MP imaging system. Fluorescence-based detection was performed with the same imaging system. Acknowledging the findings of Curi et al. [25], OD normalization was done in relation to total protein levels. Although, instead of the standard Ponceau S staining, protein’s signal OD was normalized to total lane OD after transfer. This was possible due to the utilization of the stain-free technology, with greater linear dynamic range than the typical Ponceau S method, as stated by the manufacturer (Bio-Rad). To compare samples in different blots, the OD signal was also normalized to the technical control sample. Blot scans were analyzed with ImageLab 5.1 software (Bio-Rad).

Statistical analysis

Categorical clinical data are presented as absolute frequencies. Fisher’s exact test was applied to detect differences between both groups (cRR and iRR). Continuous demographical and molecular expression data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. The normality of the distribution was tested by the D’Agostino & Pearson omnibus method. The differences between groups were tested with the unpaired two-tailed t-test, if the variables were normally distributed, or with the Mann-Whitney test, if otherwise. Correlation between clinical parameters and the relative expression of the proteins was evaluated with Pearson’s test if data presented a normal distribution and with Spearman’s test, if otherwise. All statistical tests were done with GraphPad Prism 6 and, in any case, p <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Characterization of the preoperative levels of ubiquitin and of hypertrophy-associated ubiquitin ligases in the left ventricle

Protein recycling by the proteasome requires prior ubiquitination. Therefore, we hypothesized that cRR patients present higher preoperative levels of total protein ubiquitination. Immunodetection of ubiquitinated proteins, however, showed no significant difference in total ubiquitin levels between the two groups (). Perhaps, ubiquitination of rather specific substrates may underscore the difference between these groups. Moreover, an incomplete response may also arise from dysregulation of the E3 ubiquitin ligases involved in marking proteins towards proteasome turnover. In this sense, the relative expression of three muscle-specific ubiquitin ligases, namely MuRF1 (), MuRF3 () and atrogin-1 (), which are known to stimulate atrophy or blunt hypertrophy [18-20] were assessed. Additionally, the ubiquitous MDM2 was also measured (), due to previously reported cardioprotective effects in a different pathological setting [21]. Surprisingly, no differences were found for these UPS players, despite the apparently higher levels of MuRF3 (1.3-fold, p = 0.17) in cRR patients, which did not reach statistical significance.

Correlation analysis

Considering that most of the clinical parameters measured are continuous variables, correlation analysis was performed to foresee potential associations between preoperative levels of ubiquitin and its ligases with patients’ outcomes. Comparison between clinical parameters showed that patients with higher preoperative LVMi displayed a higher tendency to LVM regression, as demonstrated by a positive association with ΔLVM (). Besides, LVM regression should rely mainly on the normalization of the PWT, since this parameter was out of the three echocardiographic indexes of chamber geometry (LVEDD, IVST and PWT), the one more closely associated to ΔLVM (r = 0.49, p = 0.07). This is expected considering the pattern of concentric remodeling commonly found in AS patients [26]. Furthermore, AVAi correlated negatively with preoperative IVST (r = -0.69, p = 0.01) and both Peak Ao and the maximal transvalvular pressure gradient correlated positively with LVMi (r = 0.55, p = 0.03), showing that the magnitude of hypertrophy is associated with AS severity. Altogether, these results reassure the consistency of clinical data.

Also presented in are the correlations between the levels of protein ubiquitination and ligases with several clinical parameters. Total levels of ubiquitination were found inversely correlated with AVAi (r = -0.63, p = 0.03). Significant positive correlations were also observed between ubiquitin and preoperative IVST (r = 0.55, p = 0.03) and PWT (r = 0.65, p = 0.009), both markers of hypertrophy. As opposed to ubiquitin, MuRF1 was positively associated to AVAi (r = 0.59, p = 0.04). MuRF1 also showed a negative association with preoperative RWT (r = -0.56, p = 0.03). Somehow unexpected, though, a strong positive association of atrogin-1 with preoperative LVMi (r = 0.70, p = 0.006) is evident. Since it is unethical to collect LV from patients after AVR, the variation of total protein ubiquitination and of ligases during RR cannot be evaluated. Still, their association with several post-clinical parameters may be analyzed. Regarding MuRF1, adding to its inverse association with preoperative RWT, this ligase showed a negative association to postoperative PWT (r = -0.68, p = 0.005). Atrogin, in turn, was positively associated with postoperative IVST (r = 0.71, p = 0.005). No correlations were found between MuRF3 and any of the pre- or postoperative parameters analyzed. Concerning LVM regression, the most important parameter to determine the success of AVR in patients’ outcome, out of the five UPS elements analyzed, MDM2 showed the strongest association (r = -0.44), approaching significance (p = 0.10). Curiously, MDM2, unlike the remaining ligases, is the only showing an inverse relationship with ΔLVM.

Discussion

Despite directly addressing AS’ superimposed pressure overload, AVR may not always be an effective treatment. In fact, some patients still exhibit LV hypertrophy after surgery and demand further clinical attention and care. In this regard, identifying potential novel therapeutic targets to maximize the outcome of patients displaying iRR can be helpful. Based on the premise that UPS plays a central role in sarcomere recycling and is required for the management of hypertrophy [15], the association between the preoperative levels of ubiquitin and of its ligases with the degree of RR was tested. When comparing the two study groups, it was clear that no significant differences were present. This may be explained by the high standard deviation of the protein levels, which, in turn, should reflect the high variation in LVM regression. For that reason, and acknowledging that clinical parameters were continuous variables, correlation analysis was performed, in an effort to uncover associations between UPS elements and markers of AS severity, hypertrophy and RR.

Proteasome-based degradation of proteins relies on the serial addition of ubiquitin chains [16]. Thus, the global ubiquitination profile in the LV was studied. Interestingly, an association between the amount of ubiquitinated proteins and the severity of AS was observed, as patients with lower valve area (AVAi) presented higher ubiquitin expression. Besides, positive correlations between hypertrophy (preoperative IVST and PWT) and total levels of ubiquitinated proteins were found. Therefore, it is tempting to suggest that the more stenotic the valves are, the higher will be the magnitude of LV hypertrophy and, consequently, the levels of ubiquitinated proteins. Perhaps, depending on the specificity of the ubiquitination, conferred by E3 ligases, and the (dys)regulation of E3 ligases itself, such proteins may or may not be recycled on the proteasome. This may be one of the reasons why some patients present complete and others incomplete RR.

Many ubiquitin ligases have been studied in the heart and reported to regulate cell trophic response [16,17]. Since RR relies heavily on the reversal of hypertrophy, the levels of post-natal muscle-specific ubiquitin ligases, MuRF1, MuRF3 and atrogin-1, were studied. MuRF1 has been reported to regulate hypertrophy by downregulation of the calcineurin A-nuclear factor of activated T cells axis, through ubiquitination and consequent proteasomal delivery [27]. The relevance of MuRF1 and of MuRF3 is also demonstrated by extreme hypertrophy in a MuRF1 and MuRF3 double knockout model [19]. MuRF1 was found negatively associated with postoperative PWT. Thus, although, not directly associated with LV regression, MuRF1 may be important for the normalization of LV chamber geometry, by limiting LV’s posterior wall thickening. This is corroborated by a previous study showing increased MuRF1 levels in atrophied LV samples collected after implantation of LVADs [28]. Intriguingly, though, MuRF1 levels were lower in patients with narrower aortic valves (positive correlation with AVAi), suggesting a possible downregulation with increased AS severity that requires confirmation. The process of sarcomere recycling has also been associated with MuRF3 activity. MuRF3-knockout mice show hypertrophic cardiomyopathy associated with subsarcolemmal accumulation of myosin [19]. However, in this setting, it seems that MuRF3 activity may not be as important as the remaining ligases, since, no correlation was found with any of the clinical parameters. Atrogin-1 expression was also hypothesized to be an important factor in determining LVM regression after AVR. The rationale is supported by, for instance, reduced hypertrophy and apoptosis in atrogin-1 overexpressing mice subjected to myocardial pressure overload [20]. Surprisingly, though, atrogin-1 showed a strong positive correlation with preoperative LVMi and with postoperative IVST. If, at one hand, the association with LVMi suggests that atrogin-1 expression is a response to growing cardiomyocytes; at the other hand, the association to postoperative IVST (a hypertrophy marker) suggests that such induction might not be beneficial. In fact, some reports challenge the idea of atrogin-1 being cardioprotective in AS-induced myocardial remodeling. While the expression of this enzyme rises in response to pressure overload-induced hypertrophy [29], atrogin also shows a profibrotic role. This is corroborated by the fact that atrogin-1 knockout mice show smaller hearts and reduced interstitial fibrosis when subjected to aortic constriction-induced pressure overload [30]. Mechanistically, this is explained by lower activation of the transcription factor nuclear factor-κB, because transgenic mice presented higher levels of its cytoplasmic inhibitor (IκBα). Given the contradictory findings [20,29,30], more research is required to understand the definitive role of atrogin-1 in cardiac hypertrophy induced by AS.

Although MDM2 (a.k.a. HDM2, double minute 2 protein) is traditionally associated with tumorigenesis, due to its p53 suppressing activities, it also targets sarcomeric proteins for degradation, such as telethonin [31]. Previous experiments have shown a cardioprotective role of MDM2. Overexpression of MDM2 efficiently mitigated the development of hypertrophy and fetal gene program activation in cardiomyocytes stimulated in vitro with phenylephrine and endothelin-1 [21]. Others reported that MDM2 increases in response to treatment with insulin-like growth factor-1, thus protecting from stretch-mediated apoptosis, through the arrest of p53 function [32]. Finally, ablation of cardiac MDM2 resulted in concentric hypertrophy, wall thickening and interstitial fibrosis. This was translated into lower fractional shortening and higher mortality in a Mdm2-knockout mouse model [33]. Therefore, despite the ubiquitous expression, MDM2 expression was also hypothesized to affect the degree of myocardial RR after AVR. Even though only a trend, MDM2 was of all ubiquitin ligases, the one showing the closest association to LVM regression (r = -0.44, p = 0.1). Curiously, though, a negative relationship was observed, suggesting that patients with higher levels of MDM2 are at higher risk of post-AVR iRR. One hypothesis to explain this observation is that, despite being initially protective, persistent activation can be detrimental. In fact, MDM2 inhibits p53 transcriptional activity and promotes its degradation through direct ubiquitination and targeting to proteasome, preventing apoptosis [34]. Notwithstanding, other pathways can be activated by MDM2 and negatively regulate RR. Upregulation of MDM2 leads to sustained inflammation and fibrosis also through the degradation of the IκBα [35], favoring hypertrophy as well [36]. Thus, the present data and the existing evidence together suggest that long-term activation of MDM2 may not be beneficial for myocardial recovery. Anyhow, since only a trend for an association between MDM2 and LVM regression was observed, a screen in a bigger population will be necessary. If confirmed, the definitive role of MDM2, in the context of RR, should be elucidated in animal models of Mdm2 overexpression/ablation, considering that current evidence is conflicting.

Conclusions

In summary, studying human cardiac tissue is challenging. Heart biopsies are only available upon surgery, and the collected material is scarce but highly valuable. The biggest limitation of the present work was the impossibility to perform molecular analysis on LV after surgery. Consequently, the assessment of myocardial recovery was limited to echocardiographic examination, and no causal relationships could be determined between variation of UPS players and the incompleteness of RR. Nonetheless, by assessing proteins governing proteostasis in heart muscle and testing their association with clinical parameters some ubiquitin ligases arose as important players in the process of RR, meriting further scrutiny. This is the case for MuRF1, herein showing a negative correlation with a hypertrophy marker, the postoperative PWT. MuRF1 prognostic role requires tests in larger cohorts and, if possible, in a longitudinal manner. Also worthy of further focus of research is MDM2, the ubiquitin ligase with the highest association with LVM regression. Current evidence points to a rather adverse role of MDM2 in the progression of RR. MDM2 may, thus, become an important therapeutic target, though, only by performing animal studies a definitive conclusion will be achieved.

Remaining western blot scans are depicted for ubiquitin-tagged proteins (A) and for the E3 ubiquitin ligases Muscle Ring Finger (MuRF) 1 (B), MuRF3 (C), atrogin-1 (D) and Murine Double Minute 2 (MDM2) (E). The respective optical density-based semi-quantification is shown in Fig 1(F)–1(J). T.C. designates the technical control. Samples 163, 586 and 603 are marked in red because these were excluded from the study a posteriori (aortic or mitral insufficiency was found to be more or as severe as aortic stenosis). ‘M’ means missing. cRR identifies patients with complete reverse remodeling and iRR denotes patients with incomplete reverse remodeling.

Fig 1

Myocardial ubiquitination profile and ubiquitin ligases expression in patients with complete or incomplete reverse remodeling.

Representative western blot scans are depicted for ubiquitin-tagged proteins (A) and for the E3 ubiquitin ligases Muscle Ring Finger (MuRF) 1 (B), MuRF3 (C), atrogin-1 (D) and Murine Double Minute 2 (MDM2) (E). Additional blots can be found in S1 Fig. In the latter, two bands are identified with arrows, referring to intact MDM2 (upper arrow) and its cleavage product (lower arrow), as reported in the datasheet. Quantification was based on the intact band only. The respective optical density-based semi-quantification is shown in (F), (G), (H), (I) and (J). T.C. designates the technical control. Samples 163, 586 and 603 are marked in red because these were excluded from the study a posteriori (aortic or mitral insufficiency was found to be more or as severe as aortic stenosis). cRR identifies patients with complete reverse remodeling and iRR denotes patients with incomplete reverse remodeling.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

26 May 2020

PONE-D-20-03272

Preoperative myocardial expression of E3 ubiquitin ligases in aortic stenosis patients undergoing valve replacement and their association to postoperative hypertrophy

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Falcão-Pires,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 10 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cécile Oury

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors set out to identify factors that affect the degree of reverse remodeling following aortic valve replacement. The authors specifically focus their analysis on the ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS) by measuring preoperative levels of total ubiquitination and several E3 ubiquitin ligases. Pre and postoperative echocardiography data were used to segregate patients into incomplete or complete reverse remodeling groups. While no significant differences in UPS components were observed between these groups, there were significant correlations arising among various cardiac parameters and the UPS. Interestingly, total preoperative ubiquitination levels correlated with increased markers of hypertrophy, while individual E3 ligases had both positive and inverse correlations. Importantly, the authors directly address the limitations of this data set ie. Lack of postoperative protein levels. This data while correlative has the potential, with further study, to identify therapeutic targets and/or predict patient outcomes.

Comments:

1. Most of the data from table 3 is duplicated in figure 2. Should choose one or the other for publication.

2. Why are some non-significant correlations listed in table 3 and others are left blank?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

14 Jul 2020

Dear editors,

We are submitting the revised version of the manuscript entitled “Preoperative myocardial expression of E3 ubiquitin ligases in aortic stenosis patients undergoing valve replacement and their association to postoperative hypertrophy” for consideration by the PLOS ONE.

In this version we addressed the two points raised during the revision process, namely data duplication (figure 2 was eliminated, table 3 was maintained) and data display on table 3, which now depicts only significant (p < 0.05) and marginally significant (p ≤ 0.10) correlations.

Acknowledging the editorial instructions, we have revised the manuscript to comply with the requested formatting rules. Also, both Figure 1 and Supplementary Figure 1 are being resubmitted, after being uploaded to PACE and adjusted according to PLOS ONE criteria. Regarding the original blot images, these are being submitted as supporting information (“S1_raw_images”). Blot scans have been exported as TIFF images directly from Image Lab, and the requested annotations have been added post hoc on the PDF file. In such a file, beyond the five original scans, we have added the colorimetric scans used to estimate molecular weight from the protein ladder. These powerpoint slides, which had been already uploaded in the first submission, are now in the end of S1_raw_images file.

We reiterate that the present “research article” is an original submission to PLOS ONE, which has not been published nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Also, the authors declare no conflicts of interest.

We hope that this manuscript fulfils the demanded quality for publication in PLOS ONE.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours truthfully, Inês Falcão Pires

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

20 Jul 2020

Preoperative myocardial expression of E3 ubiquitin ligases in aortic stenosis patients undergoing valve replacement and their association to postoperative hypertrophy

PONE-D-20-03272R1

Dear Dr. Falcão-Pires,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Cécile Oury

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

10 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-03272R1

Preoperative myocardial expression of E3 ubiquitin ligases in aortic stenosis patients undergoing valve replacement and their association to postoperative hypertrophy

Dear Dr. Falcão-Pires:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Cécile Oury

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Table 1

Clinical data of the study population.

Parameters
Degree of Reverse Remodeling	Complete (ΔLVM≥15%)	Incomplete (ΔLVM≤5%)	p
Demographics
N	8	7	ns
Age	68.7±3.2	68.8±3.4	ns
Gender (male:female)	4:3	1:6	ns
BMI (kg/m2)	30.2±9.2	33.6±6.3	ns
Obesity (n)	3	5	ns
Hypertension (n)	5	5	ns
Diabetes mellitus (n)	3	2	ns
CAD (≤1 vessel) (n)	1	2	ns
Smoking history (n)	4	1	ns
COPD (n)	2	1	ns
Mild-to-moderate aortic insufficiency (n)	8	5	ns
Mild-to-moderate mitral stenosis (n)	0	0	ns
Mild-to-moderate mitral insufficiency (n)	7	5	ns
Mild-to-moderate tricuspid insufficiency (n)	6	4	ns
Preoperative parameters
AVAi, cm2/m2	0.44±0.04	0.44±0.04	ns
Peak Ao, m/s	4.7±0.6	4.5±0.5	ns
Max ATPG, mmHg	89.6±22.1	80.6±17.9	ns
Mean ATPG, mmHg	56.3±13.5	51.0±11.8	ns
LVEDD, cm	5.2±0.2	4.8±0.5	ns
IVST, cm	1.4±0.2	1.3±0.2	ns
PWT, cm	1.3±0.1	1.2±0.2	ns
RWT	0.50±0.05	0.50±0.09	ns
LVMi, g/m2	164.9±32.0	130.1±26.8	*
Postoperative parameters
LVEDD, cm	4.8±0.4	5.0±0.5	ns
IVST, cm	1.3±0.2	1.4±0.1	ns
PWT, cm	1.0±0.2	1.1±0.1	a
RWT	0.41±0.07	0.45±0.06	ns
LVMi, g/m2	110.6±23.8	139.6±27.9	*
ΔLVM, %	32.9±7.2	-7.9±9.9	b

Abbreviations: ATPG: aortic transvalvular pressure gradient; AVAi: aortic valve area, indexed to body surface area; BMI: body mass index; CAD: coronary artery disease; COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; IVST: interventricular septal thickness; LVEDD: left ventricle end-diastolic dimension; LVMi: left ventricle mass, indexed to body surface area; Peak Ao: peak aortic valve velocity; PWT: posterior wall thickness; RWT: relative wall thickness; ΔLVM: left ventricle mass regression.

* p <0.05 (unpaired two-tailed t-test)

a p = 0.06

b Independent variable

Table 2

List of antibodies used in western blot.

Protein target	UniProt ID and Gene Name	Primary antibody	Secondary antibody
Ubiquitin	Not applying—the antibody targets ubiquitin and polyubiquitin chains	Mouse mAb 1:500; sc-166553	Peroxidase-AffiniPure Goat pAb anti-mouse 1:10000; Jackson Immunoresearch lab. 115-035-062
Muscle Ring Finger 1	Q969Q1 TRIM63	Goat pAb 1:200; ab4125	HRP-linked Donkey pAb anti-goat 1:10000; sc-2020
Muscle Ring Finger 3	Q9BYV2 TRIM54	Goat pAb 1:500; ab4351	HRP-linked Donkey pAb anti-goat 1:10000; sc-2020
Atrogin-1	Q969P5 FBXO32	Mouse mAb 1:500; sc-166806	DyLight 800-conjugated Goat pAb anti-mouse; Bio-Rad STAR117D800GA
Murine Double Minute 2	Q00987 MDM2	Mouse mAb 1:500; sc-965	Peroxidase-AffiniPure Goat pAb anti-mouse 1:10000; Jackson Immunoresearch lab. 115-035-062

Abbreviations: HRP: horseradish peroxidase; mAb: monoclonal antibody; pAb: polyclonal antibody

Table 3

Correlation analysis between clinical and molecular data.

Clinical Parameters	ΔLVM	Molecular Data
		Ubiquitina	MuRF1	MuRF3	Atrogin-1	MDM2b
AVAi		r = -0.63p = 0.03	r = 0.59p = 0.04	r = 0.54p = 0.09
IVST (preop.)		r = 0.55p = 0.03
IVST (postop.)					r = 0.71p = 0.005
PWT (preop.)		r = 0.65p = 0.009			r = 0.49p = 0.08
PWTb (postop.)			r = -0.68p = 0.005
RWT (preop.)			r = -0.56p = 0.03
RWT (postop.)
LVMi (preop.)	r = 0.55p = 0.04				r = 0.70p = 0.006
LVMi (postop.)	r = -0.56p = 0.03
	ΔLVM					r = -0.44p = 0.10

No correlations were found between ubiquitin or its ligases and age, body mass index, peak aortic valve velocity or to mean/maximal aortic transvalvular pressure gradients.

Marginally significant correlations (p ≤ 0.10) are shown in grey.

Abbreviations: MuRF; Muscle Ring Finger Protein; MDM2: Murine Double Minute 2; AVAi: indexed aortic valve area; LVEDD: left ventricle end-diastolic dimension; IVST: interventricular septal thickness; PWT: posterior wall thickness; LVMi; indexed left ventricle mass, indexed to body surface area; ΔLVM: left ventricle mass variation.

a Total protein ubiquitination

b Non-normal distribution; Spearman’s test was used instead