| Literature DB >> 34926599 |
Severi Mulari1,2, Arda Eskin3, Milla Lampinen1,4, Annu Nummi2, Tuomo Nieminen2, Kari Teittinen2, Teija Ojala1, Matti Kankainen5, Antti Vento2, Jari Laurikka6,7, Markku Kupari2, Ari Harjula2, Nurcan Tuncbag3,8,9, Esko Kankuri1.
Abstract
Background: Although many pathological changes have been associated with ischemic heart disease (IHD), molecular-level alterations specific to the ischemic myocardium and their potential to reflect disease severity or therapeutic outcome remain unclear. Currently, diagnosis occurs relatively late and evaluating disease severity is largely based on clinical symptoms, various imaging modalities, or the determination of risk factors. This study aims to identify IHD-associated signature RNAs from the atrial myocardium and evaluate their ability to reflect disease severity or cardiac surgery outcomes. Methods andEntities:
Keywords: atrial appendage; biomarkers; cardiovascular surgery; chronic ischemic heart disease; differentially expressed genes; ischemia
Year: 2021 PMID: 34926599 PMCID: PMC8674465 DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.728198
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med ISSN: 2297-055X
Figure 1(A) Demographic characteristics of the study population. AMI, acute myocardial infarction; BMI, body mass index; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CPB, cardiopulmonary bypass; MACCE, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention. (B) Pre- and post-operative medication use in the study groups. Color key representing the total use of medication (as log2 average DDD); bubble plot representing the percentage of patients on medication indicated in study groups. DDD, defined daily dose.
Figure 2(A–C) Volcano plots providing an overview and the number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs). IHD vs. GTEx patients (A), non-IHD vs. GTEx patients (B), and IHD vs. non-IHD patients (C). (D) DEG-related pathways between IHD and non-IHD vs. GTEx comparison. Major differences are highlighted in red, with the color key showing the activation Z-score. The size of a balloon represents the –log(FDR) value. (E) P-values for the top five enriched pathways in IHD vs. non-IHD group comparisons. (F) Number of DEGs in the top five enriched pathways IHD vs. non-IHD group comparisons.
Figure 3(A) List of enriched miRNAs in IHD vs. non-IHD patients. Color key, log FC; bubble plot, number of targets. (B) List of pathways related to enriched miRNAs. The bars express –log(p-value). (C) Differentially expressed downstream target genes and pathways related to hsa-mir-1254-1 and hsa-mir-6769a.
Figure 4(A) Heatmap showing a general overview of DEGs comparing the categorized EF groups in IHD patients. The heatmap color key expresses the Z-scores. (B) Correlations between PCDHGs and preoperative EF and preoperative laboratory values. The size of the bubble indicates the p-value and the color key indicates the Pearson R. (C) Correlations between preoperative EF and PCDHGs. EF, ejection fraction; PCDHG, protocadherin.
Figure 5(A) List of genes associated with SYNTAX score I. (B) FUT10 and CSRNP3 correlations with preoperative laboratory tests. The color key illustrates the Pearson R and the size of the bubble indicates the p-value. (C) FUT10 and CSRNP3 expression in the SYNTAX score groups. (D,E) Representative CSRNP3 and FUT10 stainings from the validation group.
Figure 6Pathways associated with a positive and negative benefit from surgery according to EF change. The heatmap provides a visual overview of the differences between two groups in terms of DEGs and clinically associated diseases, with color key representing the Z-score, and the top ten up and down regulated pathways are listed with their log(FDR) values.
Figure 7(A) Top 10 genes linearly correlated with the change in EF following surgery. (B) Correlation heatmap of the genes mapped to a GO biological process. Color key, correlation coefficient. (C) Correlation plots of the top three genes with the highest |logFC| between surgery benefit classes.