| Literature DB >> 34135616 |
Qing Zhu1, Cuiting Zhao1, Yonghuai Wang1, Xinxin Li1, Yixue Xue2,3,4, Chunyan Ma1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary slow flow (CSF) is an angiographic phenomenon characterized by delayed coronary opacification with normal or near-normal epicardial coronary arteries. The pathogenesis of CSF is closely related to inflammatory response. Accumulating evidence shows that long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) play an important role in cardiovascular disease. However, the mechanism underlying the influence of the lncRNA nuclear enriched abundant transcripts 1 (NEAT1) on CSF is still unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty CSF patients and forty control subjects were included in the study and underwent coronary angiography, Seattle angina questionnaire (SAQ) and echocardiography. The plasma levels of the inflammatory factors soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) were determined by ELISA. The expression levels of NEAT1, miR-148b-3p and ICAM-1 in cells were measured by qRT-PCR or Western blotting. Cell proliferation was measured by 5-Ethynyl-2'-deoxyuridine (EdU) and Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8) assay. Cell apoptosis was detected by apoptosis assay. The relationship between NEAT1 and miR-148b-3p was verified by luciferase reporter gene assay, RNA immunoprecipitation (RIP) assay and avidin-biotin pull-down assay. The relationship between ICAM-1 and miR-148b-3p was verified by luciferase reporter gene assay and avidin-biotin pull-down assay.Entities:
Keywords: biomarkers; cell biology; coronary slow flow; inflammation; ncRNA
Year: 2021 PMID: 34135616 PMCID: PMC8200141 DOI: 10.2147/JIR.S312583
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Inflamm Res ISSN: 1178-7031
Baseline Demographic, Clinical and Echocardiographic Characteristics of the Study Population
| CSF (n=40) | Control (n=40) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (yrs) | 56.20±11.79 | 57.43±8.52 | 0.60 |
| Female [n (%)] | 18 (45.0) | 25 (62.5) | 0.29 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 26.03±4.37 | 25.80±3.17 | 0.56 |
| Smoking [n (%)] | 8 (20.0) | 8 (20.0) | 1.00 |
| Hypertension [n (%)] | 16 (40.0) | 14 (35.0) | 0.64 |
| Diabetes mellitus [n (%)] | 4 (10.0) | 4 (10.0) | 1.00 |
| Family history of myocardial infarction | 5 (12.5) | 9 (22.5) | 0.24 |
| Triglycerides (mmol/L) | 1.51±0.72 | 1.66±0.70 | 0.35 |
| Total cholesterol (mmol/L) | 4.42±1.05 | 4.48±1.15 | 0.81 |
| LDL cholesterol (mmol/L) | 2.83±0.84 | 2.85±1.01 | 0.92 |
| HDL cholesterol (mmol/L) | 1.11±0.26 | 1.12±0.35 | 0.88 |
| Red blood cell count (1012/L) | 4.53±0.46 | 4.47±0.42 | 0.54 |
| Red cell distribution width (%) | 12.83±0.31 | 12.73±0.28 | 0.13 |
| Platelet count (109/L) | 225.74±40.36 | 224.93±42.95 | 0.93 |
| Platelet distribution width (%) | 11.85±1.46 | 11.71±1.68 | 0.68 |
| Aspirin [n (%)] | 9 (22.5) | 7 (17.5) | 0.62 |
| ACEI/ARB [n (%)] | 18 (45.0) | 13 (32.5) | 0.37 |
| b-Blockers [n (%)] | 22 (55.0) | 15 (37.5) | 0.25 |
| Calcium channel blocker [n (%)] | 11 (27.5) | 7 (17.5) | 0.35 |
| Statin [n (%)] | 31 (77.5) | 20 (50.0) | 0.12 |
| Nitrates [n (%)] | 30 (75.0) | 21 (52.5) | 0.21 |
| cLAD | 31.40±5.87 | 16.15±4.15 | |
| LCX | 40.33±7.39 | 19.44±3.52 | |
| RCA | 25.58±8.66 | 13.90±4.82 | |
| Mean | 32.43±4.45 | 16.48±2.93 | |
| 1-vessel [n (%)] | 8 (20.00) | ||
| 2-vessel [n (%)] | 21 (52.50) | ||
| 3-vessel [n (%)] | 11 (27.50) | ||
| Physical limitation | 56.89±20.54 | 69.77±14.43 | |
| Angina stability | 66.88±34.15 | 66.22±26.49 | 0.93 |
| Angina frequency | 72.75±22.30 | 79.33±18.37 | 0.19 |
| Treatment satisfaction | 74.55±18.42 | 80.01±11.62 | 0.14 |
| Quality of life | 52.09±28.04 | 55.28±19.00 | 0.57 |
| LV end-diastolic volume (mL) | 87.33±21.62 | 83.28±20.53 | 0.43 |
| LV ejection fraction (%) | 64.24±2.66 | 63.59±2.96 | 0.34 |
| LV GLS (%) | −17.19±1.92 | −18.50±2.49 | |
| LA volume index (mL/m2) | 27.64±8.59 | 27.67±10.11 | 0.99 |
| MV E (cm/s) | 59.56±10.98 | 69.18±12.49 | |
| MV E/A | 0.86±0.29 | 1.04±0.31 | |
| MV e’ (cm/s) | 7.38±2.16 | 7.98±1.97 | 0.23 |
| MV E/e’ | 8.49±2.52 | 8.68±2.13 | 0.74 |
| Tricuspid regurgitation velocity (m/s) | 2.37±0.35 | 2.11±0.62 | 0.11 |
Notes: Values shown are Mean ± SD. aP value of less than 0.05 compared with the control group.
Abbreviations: LV, left ventricular; LA, left atrial; MV, mitral valve; E, early diastolic flow velocity; A, late diastolic flow velocity; e’, early diastolic annular velocity; GLS, global longitudinal strain.
Figure 1Relationship between plasma inflammation-associated biomarkers and coronary slow flow (CSF). (A) Plasma sICAM-1 levels were significantly higher in patients with CSF than in controls. (B) Plasma IL-6 levels were significantly higher in patients with CSF. (C) Plasma TNF-α levels were significantly higher in patients with CSF. (D) Correlation between the number of coronary arteries involved in CSF and plasma sICAM-1 level. (E) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis of plasma sICAM-1 for diagnosing CSF; Data were analysed using Student’s t-test (A–C); one-way ANOVA for pairwise comparisons or comparisons between multiple groups with a single variable (D). Data represent the mean ± SD, **P < 0.01 vs Control group.
Simple and Multiple Linear Regression Analysis for Mean TFC
| Variables | Simple | Multiple | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical Limitation | −0.12 [−0.22, −0.01] | −0.09 [−0.16, −0.02] | ||
| MV E | −0.21 [−0.39, −0.06] | −0.05 [−0.17, 0.06] | 0.36 | |
| MV E/A | −4.75 [−11.24, 1.75] | 0.15 | ||
| LV GLS | 1.15 [0.26, 2.03] | 0.05 [−0.58, 0.67] | 0.88 | |
| IL-6 | 0.09 [0.05, 0.13] | 0.01 [−0.04, 0.06] | 0.71 | |
| TNF-α | 4.60 [1.30, 7.90] | 2.01 [−1.18, 5.21] | 0.21 | |
| sICAM-1 | 0.02 [0.02, 0.03] | 0.02 [0.02, 0.03] | ||
Notes: Enter linear regression for mean TFC by physical limitation, MV E, MV E/A, LV GLS, IL-6, TNF-α and sICAM-1. aP value of less than 0.05.
Abbreviations: MV, mitral valve; E, early diastolic flow velocity; A, late diastolic flow velocity; LV, left ventricular; GLS, global longitudinal strain; β, regression coefficient; CI, confidence interval.
Logistic Regression Analysis for CSF
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR [95% CI] | OR [95% CI] | OR [95% CI] | ||||
| Age | 0.98 [0.93, 1.04] | 0.54 | 0.96 [0.89, 1.03] | 0.29 | 0.99 [0.88, 1.12] | 0.85 |
| Sex | 0.24 [0.07, 0.78] | 0.19 [0.04, 0.85] | 0.03 | 0.06 [0.00, 1.09] | 0.06 | |
| BMI | 1.04 [0.91, 1.19] | 0.58 | 1.06 [0.89, 1.28] | 0.51 | 1.33 [0.89, 1.98] | 0.16 |
| Physical Limitation | 0.94 [0.91, 0.97] | 0.94 [0.90, 0.98] | 0.93 [0.87, 0.99] | |||
| MV E | 0.92 [0.86, 0.99] | 1.01 [0.89, 1.16] | 0.84 | |||
| MV E/A | 0.48 [0.02, 9.76] | 0.64 | 0.00 [0.00, 2.90] | 0.09 | ||
| LV GLS | 1.08 [0.79, 1.48] | 0.64 | 0.60 [0.28, 1.27] | 0.18 | ||
| IL-6 | 1.00 [0.96, 1.04] | 0.83 | ||||
| TNF-αb | 3.54 [0.31, 40.85] | 0.31 | ||||
| sICAM-1 | 1.02 [1.00, 1.03] | |||||
Notes: Enter logistic regression for CSF by age, sex, BMI, physical limitation, MV E, MV E/A, LV GLS, IL-6, TNF-α and sICAM-1. Model 1 —Including clinical variables, such as age, sex, body mass index, and physical limitation. Model 2 —Including Model 1 plus MV E, MV E/A and LV GLS. Model 3 —Including Model 2 plus IL-6, TNF-α and sICAM-1. aP value of less than 0.05. bPer 1 median increase.
Abbreviations: MV, mitral valve; E, early diastolic flow velocity; A, late diastolic flow velocity; LV, left ventricular; GLS, global longitudinal strain; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Figure 2Expression of plasma miR-148b-3p and NEAT1 in CSF and controls and their relationship with CSF. (A) Plasma miR-148b-3p levels were significantly lower in patients with CSF. Data represent the mean ± SD. (B) Plasma miR-148b-3p levels were negatively correlated with the mean corrected thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count (cTFC). (C) Plasma miR-148b-3p levels were negatively correlated with sICAM-1. (D) Plasma NEAT1 levels were significantly higher in patients with CSF. Data represent the mean ± SD. (E) Plasma NEAT1 levels were positively correlated with the mean cTFC. (F) Plasma NEAT1 levels were positively correlated with sICAM-1. (G and H) ROC curve analysis of plasma miR-148b-3p and NEAT1 for diagnosing CSF. Data were analysed using Student’s t-test (A and D); Significance was determined using linear regression analysis (B, C, E and F).
Figure 3Effect of oxygen glucose deprivation (OGD) on HUVEC proliferation and apoptosis and relative expression levels of NEAT1, miR-148b-3p, and ICAM-1. (A) qRT-PCR and WB analyses were performed to detect the relative expression levels of NEAT1, miR-148b-3p and ICAM-1. Data represent the mean ± SD, **P < 0.01 vs Control group. (B) CCK-8 assays were performed to measure the effect of OGD on HUVEC proliferation (n = 3 per group). Data represent mean ± SD, **P < 0.01 vs Control group. (C) EdU assays were performed to measure the effect of OGD on HUVEC proliferation (n = 3 per group). Data represent mean ± SD, **P < 0.01 vs Control group. Scale bars represent 40 μm. (D) Flow cytometric analysis of annexinV-633 staining was used to detect the effect of OGD on HUVEC apoptosis (n = 3 per group). Data represent the mean ± SD, **P < 0.01 vs Control group. All data were analysed using Student’s t-test.
Figure 4The effects of ICAM-1 on the proliferation and apoptosis of OGD-treated HUVECs. (A) Expression of ICAM-1 protein (n = 3 per group) after ICAM-1 over-expression or inhibition in OGD-treated HUVECs. Data represent the mean ± SD, **P < 0.01 vs pre-ICAM-1-NC group, #P < 0.05 vs sh-ICAM-1-NC group. (B) CCK-8 assays were performed to measure the effect of ICAM-1 on the proliferation of OGD-treated HUVECs (n = 3 per group). Data represent the mean ± SD, **P < 0.01 vs pre-ICAM-1-NC group, ##P < 0.01 vs sh-ICAM-1-NC group. (C) EdU assays were performed to measure the effect of ICAM-1 on the proliferation of OGD-treated HUVECs (n =3 per group). Data represent the mean ± SD, **P < 0.01 vs pre-ICAM-1-NC group, ##P < 0.01 vs sh-ICAM-1-NC group. Scale bars represent 40 μm. (D) Flow cytometric analysis of annexinV-633 staining was used to measure the percentages of apoptotic OGD-treated HUVECs (n = 3 per group) after ICAM-1 over-expression or inhibition. Data represent the mean ± SD, **P < 0.01 vs pre-ICAM-1-NC group, ##P < 0.01 vs sh-ICAM-1-NC group. One-way ANOVA for pairwise comparisons or comparisons between multiple groups with a single variable.
Figure 7The schematic diagram of the mechanism of NEAT1/miR-148b-3p/ICAM-1 axis in CSF disease.