Molecular Biomarkers of Vascular Dysfunction in Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Untreated and long-lasting obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) may lead to important vascular abnormalities, including endothelial cell (EC) dysfunction, hypertension, and atherosclerosis. We observed a correlation between microcirculatory reactivity and endothelium-dependent release of nitric oxide in OSA patients. Therefore, we hypothesized that OSA affects (micro)vasculature and we aimed to identify vascular gene targets of OSA that could possibly serve as reliable biomarkers of severity of the disease and possibly of vascular risk. Using quantitative RT-PCR, we evaluated gene expression in skin biopsies of OSA patients, mouse aortas from animals exposed to 4-week intermittent hypoxia (IH; rapid oscillations in oxygen desaturation and reoxygenation), and human dermal microvascular (HMVEC) and coronary artery endothelial cells (HCAEC) cultured under IH. We demonstrate a significant upregulation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS), tumor necrosis factor-alpha-induced protein 3 (TNFAIP3; A20), hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1α?? and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression in skin biopsies obtained from OSA patients with severe nocturnal hypoxemia (nadir saturated oxygen levels [SaO2]<75%) compared to mildly hypoxemic OSA patients (SaO2 75%–90%) and a significant upregulation of vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1) expression compared to control subjects. Gene expression profile in aortas of mice exposed to IH demonstrated a significant upregulation of eNOS and VEGF. In an in vitro model of OSA, IH increased expression of A20 and decreased eNOS and HIF-1α expression in HMVEC, while increased A20, VCAM-1 and HIF-1αexpression in HCAEC, indicating that EC in culture originating from distinct vascular beds respond differently to IH stress. We conclude that gene expression profiles in skin of OSA patients may correlate with disease severity and, if validated by further studies, could possibly predict vascular risk in OSA patients

Do serum biomarkers really measure breast cancer?

Background Because screening mammography for breast cancer is less effective for premenopausal women, we investigated the feasibility of a diagnostic blood test using serum proteins. Methods This study used a set of 98 serum proteins and chose diagnostically relevant subsets via various feature-selection techniques. Because of significant noise in the data set, we applied iterated Bayesian model averaging to account for model selection uncertainty and to improve generalization performance. We assessed generalization performance using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results The classifiers were able to distinguish normal tissue from breast cancer with a classification performance of AUC = 0.82 ± 0.04 with the proteins MIF, MMP-9, and MPO. The classifiers distinguished normal tissue from benign lesions similarly at AUC = 0.80 ± 0.05. However, the serum proteins of benign and malignant lesions were indistinguishable (AUC = 0.55 ± 0.06). The classification tasks of normal vs. cancer and normal vs. benign selected the same top feature: MIF, which suggests that the biomarkers indicated inflammatory response rather than cancer. Conclusion Overall, the selected serum proteins showed moderate ability for detecting lesions. However, they are probably more indicative of secondary effects such as inflammation rather than specific for malignancy.United States. Dept. of Defense. Breast Cancer Research Program (Grant No. W81XWH-05-1-0292)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (R01 CA-112437-01)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (NIH CA 84955

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field