Sympathetic nervous activation, mitochondrial dysfunction and outcome in acutely decompensated cirrhosis: the metabolomic prognostic models (CLIF-C MET)

Background and aims Current prognostic scores of patients with acutely decompensated cirrhosis (AD), particularly those with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), underestimate the risk of mortality. This is probably because systemic inflammation (SI), the major driver of AD/ACLF, is not reflected in the scores. SI induces metabolic changes, which impair delivery of the necessary energy for the immune reaction. This investigation aimed to identify metabolites associated with short-term (28-day) death and to design metabolomic prognostic models. Methods Two prospective multicentre large cohorts from Europe for investigating ACLF and development of ACLF, CANONIC (discovery, n=831) and PREDICT (validation, n=851), were explored by untargeted serum metabolomics to identify and validate metabolites which could allow improved prognostic modelling. Results Three prognostic metabolites strongly associated with death were selected to build the models. 4-Hydroxy-3-methoxyphenylglycol sulfate is a norepinephrine derivative, which may be derived from the brainstem response to SI. Additionally, galacturonic acid and hexanoylcarnitine are associated with mitochondrial dysfunction. Model 1 included only these three prognostic metabolites and age. Model 2 was built around 4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenylglycol sulfate, hexanoylcarnitine, bilirubin, international normalised ratio (INR) and age. In the discovery cohort, both models were more accurate in predicting death within 7, 14 and 28 days after admission compared with MELDNa score (C-index: 0.9267, 0.9002 and 0.8424, and 0.9369, 0.9206 and 0.8529, with model 1 and model 2, respectively). Similar results were found in the validation cohort (C-index: 0.940, 0.834 and 0.791, and 0.947, 0.857 and 0.810, with model 1 and model 2, respectively). Also, in ACLF, model 1 and model 2 outperformed MELDNa 7, 14 and 28 days after admission for prediction of mortality. Conclusions Models including metabolites (CLIF-C MET) reflecting SI, mitochondrial dysfunction and sympathetic system activation are better predictors of short-term mortality than scores based only on organ dysfunction (eg, MELDNa), especially in patients with ACLF

Sympathetic nervous activation, mitochondrial dysfunction and outcome in acutely decompensated cirrhosis: the metabolomic prognostic models (CLIF-C MET)

Background and aims: Current prognostic scores of patients with acutely decompensated cirrhosis (AD), particularly those with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), underestimate the risk of mortality. This is probably because systemic inflammation (SI), the major driver of AD/ACLF, is not reflected in the scores. SI induces metabolic changes, which impair delivery of the necessary energy for the immune reaction. This investigation aimed to identify metabolites associated with short-term (28-day) death and to design metabolomic prognostic models. Methods: Two prospective multicentre large cohorts from Europe for investigating ACLF and development of ACLF, CANONIC (discovery, n=831) and PREDICT (validation, n=851), were explored by untargeted serum metabolomics to identify and validate metabolites which could allow improved prognostic modelling. Results: Three prognostic metabolites strongly associated with death were selected to build the models. 4-Hydroxy-3-methoxyphenylglycol sulfate is a norepinephrine derivative, which may be derived from the brainstem response to SI. Additionally, galacturonic acid and hexanoylcarnitine are associated with mitochondrial dysfunction. Model 1 included only these three prognostic metabolites and age. Model 2 was built around 4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenylglycol sulfate, hexanoylcarnitine, bilirubin, international normalised ratio (INR) and age. In the discovery cohort, both models were more accurate in predicting death within 7, 14 and 28 days after admission compared with MELDNa score (C-index: 0.9267, 0.9002 and 0.8424, and 0.9369, 0.9206 and 0.8529, with model 1 and model 2, respectively). Similar results were found in the validation cohort (C-index: 0.940, 0.834 and 0.791, and 0.947, 0.857 and 0.810, with model 1 and model 2, respectively). Also, in ACLF, model 1 and model 2 outperformed MELDNa 7, 14 and 28 days after admission for prediction of mortality. Conclusions: Models including metabolites (CLIF-C MET) reflecting SI, mitochondrial dysfunction and sympathetic system activation are better predictors of short-term mortality than scores based only on organ dysfunction (eg, MELDNa), especially in patients with ACLF

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

Sympathetic nervous activation, mitochondrial dysfunction and outcome in acutely decompensated cirrhosis: the metabolomic prognostic models (CLIF-C MET)

Background and aims Current prognostic scores of patients with acutely decompensated cirrhosis (AD), particularly those with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), underestimate the risk of mortality. This is probably because systemic inflammation (SI), the major driver of AD/ACLF, is not reflected in the scores. SI induces metabolic changes, which impair delivery of the necessary energy for the immune reaction. This investigation aimed to identify metabolites associated with short-term (28-day) death and to design metabolomic prognostic models. Methods Two prospective multicentre large cohorts from Europe for investigating ACLF and development of ACLF, CANONIC (discovery, n=831) and PREDICT (validation, n=851), were explored by untargeted serum metabolomics to identify and validate metabolites which could allow improved prognostic modelling. Results Three prognostic metabolites strongly associated with death were selected to build the models. 4-Hydroxy-3-methoxyphenylglycol sulfate is a norepinephrine derivative, which may be derived from the brainstem response to SI. Additionally, galacturonic acid and hexanoylcarnitine are associated with mitochondrial dysfunction. Model 1 included only these three prognostic metabolites and age. Model 2 was built around 4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenylglycol sulfate, hexanoylcarnitine, bilirubin, international normalised ratio (INR) and age. In the discovery cohort, both models were more accurate in predicting death within 7, 14 and 28 days after admission compared with MELDNa score (C-index: 0.9267, 0.9002 and 0.8424, and 0.9369, 0.9206 and 0.8529, with model 1 and model 2, respectively). Similar results were found in the validation cohort (C-index: 0.940, 0.834 and 0.791, and 0.947, 0.857 and 0.810, with model 1 and model 2, respectively). Also, in ACLF, model 1 and model 2 outperformed MELDNa 7, 14 and 28 days after admission for prediction of mortality. Conclusions Models including metabolites (CLIF-C MET) reflecting SI, mitochondrial dysfunction and sympathetic system activation are better predictors of short-term mortality than scores based only on organ dysfunction (eg, MELDNa), especially in patients with ACLF

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

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

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

International audienceIn 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