Luigi Adamo1, Jinsheng Yu2, Cibele Rocha-Resende3, Ali Javaheri4, Richard D Head2, Douglas L Mann5. 1. Center for Cardiovascular Research, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/WashUCards. 2. Department of Genetics, McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. 3. Center for Cardiovascular Research, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 4. Center for Cardiovascular Research, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/Alicardsdoc. 5. Center for Cardiovascular Research, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. Electronic address: dmann@wustl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a growing recognition of the inherent limitations of the use of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to accurately phenotype patients with heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to identify unique proteomic signatures for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with a midrange LVEF (HFmrEF), and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as to identify molecular differences between patients with ischemic and nonischemic HF. METHODS: We used high-content aptamer-based proteomics technology (SOMAscan) to interrogate the blood proteome of age- and sex-matched patients with HF within different LVEF groups. RESULTS: Within the Washington University Heart Failure Registry, we identified age/sex-matched patients within 3 LVEF categories: HFrEF (LVEF <40%), HFmrEF (LVEF 40% to 50%), and HFpEF (LVEF >50%). We found that patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF had unique variations in circulating proteins that reflected distinct biological pathophysiologies. Bioinformatics analysis revealed that there were biological themes that were unique to patients with HFrEF, HFpEF, or HFmrEF. Comparative analyses of patients with HFmrEF with improved LVEF and patients with HFmrEF with unchanged LVEF revealed marked differences between these 2 patient populations and indicated that patients with recovered LVEF are more similar to patients with HFpEF than to patients with HFrEF. Moreover, there were marked differences in the proteomic signatures of patients with ischemic and nonischemic HF. CONCLUSIONS: Viewed together, these findings suggest that it may be possible to use high-content multiplexed proteomics assays in combination with the clinical assessment of LVEF to more accurately identify clinical phenotypes of patients with HF. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: There is a growing recognition of the inherent limitations of the use of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to accurately phenotype patients with heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to identify unique proteomic signatures for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with a midrange LVEF (HFmrEF), and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as to identify molecular differences between patients with ischemic and nonischemic HF. METHODS: We used high-content aptamer-based proteomics technology (SOMAscan) to interrogate the blood proteome of age- and sex-matched patients with HF within different LVEF groups. RESULTS: Within the Washington University Heart Failure Registry, we identified age/sex-matched patients within 3 LVEF categories: HFrEF (LVEF <40%), HFmrEF (LVEF 40% to 50%), and HFpEF (LVEF >50%). We found that patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF had unique variations in circulating proteins that reflected distinct biological pathophysiologies. Bioinformatics analysis revealed that there were biological themes that were unique to patients with HFrEF, HFpEF, or HFmrEF. Comparative analyses of patients with HFmrEF with improved LVEF and patients with HFmrEF with unchanged LVEF revealed marked differences between these 2 patient populations and indicated that patients with recovered LVEF are more similar to patients with HFpEF than to patients with HFrEF. Moreover, there were marked differences in the proteomic signatures of patients with ischemic and nonischemic HF. CONCLUSIONS: Viewed together, these findings suggest that it may be possible to use high-content multiplexed proteomics assays in combination with the clinical assessment of LVEF to more accurately identify clinical phenotypes of patients with HF. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
heart failure; left ventricular ejection fraction; proteomics
Authors: Jasper Tromp; Mohsin A F Khan; Robert J Mentz; Christopher M O'Connor; Marco Metra; Howard C Dittrich; Piotr Ponikowski; John R Teerlink; Gad Cotter; Beth Davison; John G F Cleland; Michael M Givertz; Daniel M Bloomfield; Dirk J Van Veldhuisen; Hans L Hillege; Adriaan A Voors; Peter van der Meer Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2017-06-14 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Quinn S Wells; Deepak K Gupta; J Gustav Smith; Sean P Collins; Alan B Storrow; Jane Ferguson; Maya Landenhed Smith; Jill M Pulley; Sarah Collier; Xiaoming Wang; Dan M Roden; Robert E Gerszten; Thomas J Wang Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael R Bristow; David P Kao; Khadijah K Breathett; Natasha L Altman; John Gorcsan; Edward A Gill; Brian D Lowes; Edward M Gilbert; Robert A Quaife; Douglas L Mann Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Wilson Nadruz; Erin West; Mário Santos; Hicham Skali; John D Groarke; Daniel E Forman; Amil M Shah Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Susan M Joseph; Eric Novak; Suzanne V Arnold; Philip G Jones; Himad Khattak; Anne E Platts; Victor G Dávila-Román; Douglas L Mann; John A Spertus Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Julio A Chirinos; Lei Zhao; Yi Jia; Cecilia Frej; Luigi Adamo; Douglas Mann; Swapnil V Shewale; John S Millar; Daniel J Rader; Benjamin French; Jeff Brandimarto; Kenneth B Margulies; John S Parks; Zhaoqing Wang; Dietmar A Seiffert; James Fang; Nancy Sweitzer; Christina Chistoffersen; Björn Dahlbäck; Bruce D Car; David A Gordon; Thomas P Cappola; Ali Javaheri Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-04-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Brian P Halliday; Rebecca Wassall; Amrit S Lota; Zohya Khalique; John Gregson; Simon Newsome; Robert Jackson; Tsveta Rahneva; Rick Wage; Gillian Smith; Lucia Venneri; Upasana Tayal; Dominique Auger; William Midwinter; Nicola Whiffin; Ronak Rajani; Jason N Dungu; Antonis Pantazis; Stuart A Cook; James S Ware; A John Baksi; Dudley J Pennell; Stuart D Rosen; Martin R Cowie; John G F Cleland; Sanjay K Prasad Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-11-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kory J Lavine; Kathleen E Simpson; Melanie R F Gropler; Steven E Lipshultz; James D Wilkinson; Jeffrey A Towbin; Steven D Colan; Charles E Canter Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2021-08-17 Impact factor: 3.953
Authors: Ali Javaheri; Ahmed Diab; Lei Zhao; Chenao Qian; Jordana B Cohen; Payman Zamani; Anupam Kumar; Zhaoqing Wang; Christina Ebert; Joseph Maranville; Erika Kvikstad; Michael Basso; Vanessa van Empel; A Mark Richards; Robert N Doughty; Ernst Rietzschel; Karl Kammerhoff; Joseph Gogain; Peter Schafer; Dietmar A Seiffert; David A Gordon; Francisco Ramirez-Valle; Douglas L Mann; Thomas P Cappola; Julio A Chirinos Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 10.447
Authors: Olga G Grushko; Steven Cho; Ashley M Tate; Robert S Rosenson; David J Pinsky; Jacob M Haus; Scott L Hummel; Sascha N Goonewardena Journal: Cardiovasc Drugs Ther Date: 2022-10-19 Impact factor: 3.947
Authors: Omar Delannoy-Bruno; Chandani Desai; Arjun S Raman; Robert Y Chen; Matthew C Hibberd; Jiye Cheng; Nathan Han; Juan J Castillo; Garret Couture; Carlito B Lebrilla; Ruteja A Barve; Vincent Lombard; Bernard Henrissat; Semen A Leyn; Dmitry A Rodionov; Andrei L Osterman; David K Hayashi; Alexandra Meynier; Sophie Vinoy; Kyleigh Kirbach; Tara Wilmot; Andrew C Heath; Samuel Klein; Michael J Barratt; Jeffrey I Gordon Journal: Nature Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Anders Mälarstig; Aroon D Hingorani; R Thomas Lumbers; Albert Henry; María Gordillo-Marañón; Chris Finan; Amand F Schmidt; João Pedro Ferreira; Ravi Karra; Johan Sundström; Lars Lind; Johan Ärnlöv; Faiez Zannad Journal: Circulation Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 39.918
Authors: Emma S Winkler; Pavlo Gilchuk; Jinsheng Yu; Adam L Bailey; Rita E Chen; Zhenlu Chong; Seth J Zost; Hyesun Jang; Ying Huang; James D Allen; James Brett Case; Rachel E Sutton; Robert H Carnahan; Tamarand L Darling; Adrianus C M Boon; Matthias Mack; Richard D Head; Ted M Ross; James E Crowe; Michael S Diamond Journal: Cell Date: 2021-02-12 Impact factor: 66.850