Cancer biomarker development from basic science to clinical practice

The amount of published literature on biomarkers has exponentially increased over the last two decades. Cancer biomarkers are molecules that are either part of tumour cells or secreted by tumour cells. Biomarkers can be used for diagnosing cancer (tumour versus normal and differentiation of subtypes), prognosticating patients (progression free survival and overall survival) and predicting response to therapy. However, very few biomarkers are currently used in clinical practice compared to the unprecedented discovery rate. Some of the examples are: carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) for colon cancer; prostate specific antigen (PSA) for prostate; and estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and HER2 for breast cancer. Cancer biomarkers passes through a series of phases before they are used in clinical practice. First phase in biomarker development is identification of biomarkers which involve discovery, demonstration and qualification. This is followed by validation phase, which includes verification, prioritisation and initial validation. More large-scale and outcome-oriented validation studies expedite the clinical translation of biomarkers by providing a strong ‘evidence base’. The final phase in biomarker development is the routine clinical use of biomarker. In summary, careful identification of biomarkers and then validation in well-designed retrospective and prospective studies is a systematic strategy for developing clinically useful biomarkers

The current state of biomarker research for Friedreich's ataxia: a report from the 2018 FARA biomarker meeting

The 2018 FARA Biomarker Meeting highlighted the current state of development of biomarkers for Friedreich's ataxia. A mass spectroscopy assay to sensitively measure mature frataxin (reduction of which is the root cause of disease) is being developed. Biomarkers to monitor neurological disease progression include imaging, electrophysiological measures and measures of nerve function, which may be measured either in serum and/or through imaging-based technologies. Potential pharmacodynamic biomarkers include metabolic and protein biomarkers and markers of nerve damage. Cardiac imaging and serum biomarkers may reflect cardiac disease progression. Considerable progress has been made in the development of biomarkers for various contexts of use, but further work is needed in terms of larger longitudinal multisite studies, and identification of novel biomarkers for additional use cases

Biomarkers in emergency medicine

Researchers navigate the ocean of biomarkers searching for proper targets and optimal utilization of them. Emergency medicine builds up the front line to maximize the utility of clinically validated biomarkers and is the cutting edge field to test the applicability of promising biomarkers emerging from thorough translational researches. The role of biomarkers in clinical decision making would be of greater significance for identification, risk stratification, monitoring, and prognostication of the patients in the critical- and acute-care settings. No doubt basic research to explore novel biomarkers in relation to the pathogenesis is as important as its clinical counterpart. This special issue includes five selected research papers that cover a variety of biomarker- and disease-related topics

Environmental risk factors and their footprints in vivo – a proposal for the classification of oxidative stress biomarkers

Environmental agents, including socioeconomic condition, and host factors can act as causal agents and risk factors in disease. We use biomarkers and sociomarkers to study causal factors, such as overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) which could play a role in disease through oxidative stress. It is therefore important to define the exact meaning of the biomarker we measure. In this review we attempt a classification of biomarkers related to oxidative stress based on their biological meaning. We define as type zero biomarkers the direct measurement of ROS in vivo in patients. Type 1 biomarkers are the most frequently used indicators of oxidative stress, represented by oxidized lipids, proteins or nucleic acids and their bases. Type 2 biomarkers are indicators of the activation of biochemical pathways that can lead to the formation of ROS. Type 3 biomarkers are host factors such as small-molecular weight antioxidants and antioxidant enzymes, while type 4 biomarkers measure genetic factors and mutations that could modify the susceptibility of an individual to oxidative stress. We also discuss whether biomarkers are actionable or not, that is if the specific blockade of these molecules can ameliorate disease or if they are just surrogate markers. The proposed classification of biomarkers of oxidative stress based on their meaning and ambiguities, within the theoretical framework of the oxidative stress theory of disease may help identify those diseases, and individuals, where oxidative stress has a causal role, to allow targeted therapy and personalized medicine

Biomarkers predictive value for early diagnosis of Stroke- Associated Pneumonia.

To confirm the diagnostic accuracy of candidate biomarkers in stroke-associ- ated pneumonia (SAP), we prospectively enrolled ischemic stroke patients with NIHSS ≥ 10 on admission from March-2016 to August-2017. Blood samples were collected at baseline, 24 and 48 h after stroke onset. Biomarkers (MR- proADM, suPAR, SAA) were determined by immunoassays. Regarding biomarkers, MR-proADM at 24 h (P = 0.04) and both suPAR and SAA at 48 h (P = 0.036 and P = 0.057) were associated with pneumonia. The combination of SAA > 25.15 mg/dL and suPAR> 3.14 ng/mL at 48 h had 80% sensitivity and 95.8% specificity when both biomarkers were above the cut-off. The evalu- ated biomarkers represent promising tools to be evaluated in future large, prospective studies on SAP. An accurate SAP diagnosis by thorax CT might help to reduce variability in such studies

Precision medicine for suicidality: from universality to subtypes and personalization

Suicide remains a clear, present and increasing public health problem, despite being a potentially preventable tragedy. Its incidence is particularly high in people with overt or un(der)diagnosed psychiatric disorders. Objective and precise identification of individuals at risk, ways of monitoring response to treatments and novel preventive therapeutics need to be discovered, employed and widely deployed. We sought to investigate whether blood gene expression biomarkers for suicide (that is, a ‘liquid biopsy’ approach) can be identified that are more universal in nature, working across psychiatric diagnoses and genders, using larger cohorts than in previous studies. Such markers may reflect and/or be a proxy for the core biology of suicide. We were successful in this endeavor, using a comprehensive stepwise approach, leading to a wealth of findings. Steps 1, 2 and 3 were discovery, prioritization and validation for tracking suicidality, resulting in a Top Dozen list of candidate biomarkers comprising the top biomarkers from each step, as well as a larger list of 148 candidate biomarkers that survived Bonferroni correction in the validation step. Step 4 was testing the Top Dozen list and Bonferroni biomarker list for predictive ability for suicidal ideation (SI) and for future hospitalizations for suicidality in independent cohorts, leading to the identification of completely novel predictive biomarkers (such as CLN5 and AK2), as well as reinforcement of ours and others previous findings in the field (such as SLC4A4 and SKA2). Additionally, we examined whether subtypes of suicidality can be identified based on mental state at the time of high SI and identified four potential subtypes: high anxiety, low mood, combined and non-affective (psychotic). Such subtypes may delineate groups of individuals that are more homogenous in terms of suicidality biology and behavior. We also studied a more personalized approach, by psychiatric diagnosis and gender, with a focus on bipolar males, the highest risk group. Such a personalized approach may be more sensitive to gender differences and to the impact of psychiatric co-morbidities and medications. We compared testing the universal biomarkers in everybody versus testing by subtypes versus personalized by gender and diagnosis, and show that the subtype and personalized approaches permit enhanced precision of predictions for different universal biomarkers. In particular, LHFP appears to be a strong predictor for suicidality in males with depression. We also directly examined whether biomarkers discovered using male bipolars only are better predictors in a male bipolar independent cohort than universal biomarkers and show evidence for a possible advantage of personalization. We identified completely novel biomarkers (such as SPTBN1 and C7orf73), and reinforced previously known biomarkers (such as PTEN and SAT1). For diagnostic ability testing purposes, we also examined as predictors phenotypic measures as apps (for suicide risk (CFI-S, Convergent Functional Information for Suicidality) and for anxiety and mood (SASS, Simplified Affective State Scale)) by themselves, as well as in combination with the top biomarkers (the combination being our a priori primary endpoint), to provide context and enhance precision of predictions. We obtained area under the curves of 90% for SI and 77% for future hospitalizations in independent cohorts. Step 5 was to look for mechanistic understanding, starting with examining evidence for the Top Dozen and Bonferroni biomarkers for involvement in other psychiatric and non-psychiatric disorders, as a mechanism for biological predisposition and vulnerability. The biomarkers we identified also provide a window towards understanding the biology of suicide, implicating biological pathways related to neurogenesis, programmed cell death and insulin signaling from the universal biomarkers, as well as mTOR signaling from the male bipolar biomarkers. In particular, HTR2A increase coupled with ARRB1 and GSK3B decreases in expression in suicidality may provide a synergistic mechanistical corrective target, as do SLC4A4 increase coupled with AHCYL1 and AHCYL2 decrease. Step 6 was to move beyond diagnostics and mechanistical risk assessment, towards providing a foundation for personalized therapeutics. Items scored positive in the CFI-S and subtypes identified by SASS in different individuals provide targets for personalized (psycho)therapy. Some individual biomarkers are targets of existing drugs used to treat mood disorders and suicidality (lithium, clozapine and omega-3 fatty acids), providing a means toward pharmacogenomics stratification of patients and monitoring of response to treatment. Such biomarkers merit evaluation in clinical trials. Bioinformatics drug repurposing analyses with the gene expression biosignatures of the Top Dozen and Bonferroni-validated universal biomarkers identified novel potential therapeutics for suicidality, such as ebselen (a lithium mimetic), piracetam (a nootropic), chlorogenic acid (a polyphenol) and metformin (an antidiabetic and possible longevity promoting drug). Finally, based on the totality of our data and of the evidence in the field to date, a convergent functional evidence score prioritizing biomarkers that have all around evidence (track suicidality, predict it, are reflective of biological predisposition and are potential drug targets) brought to the fore APOE and IL6 from among the universal biomarkers, suggesting an inflammatory/accelerated aging component that may be a targetable common denominator

Biomarkers in sepsis.

Purpose of review: This review discusses the current developments in biomarkers for sepsis. Recent findings: With quantum leaps in technology, an array of biomarkers will become available within the next decade as point-of-care tools that will likely revolutionize the management of sepsis. These markers will facilitate early and accurate diagnosis, faster recognition of impending organ dysfunction, optimal selection and titration of appropriate therapies, and more reliable prognostication of risk and outcome. These diagnostics will also enable an improved characterization of the biological phenotype underlying sepsis and thus a better appreciation of the condition. Summary: The potential for novel biomarkers in sepsis will need to be properly realized with considerable funding, academic–industry collaborations, appropriate investigations and validation in heterogenous populations, but these developments do hold the capacity to transform patient care and outcomes

The potential of glycomics as prognostic biomarkers in liver disease and liver transplantation

The study of glycomics is a novel and fascinating approach for the development of biomarkers. It has become clear that in the field of liver disease specific glycomic patters are present in specific disease states, which has led to the development of diagnostic biomarkers. In this manuscript, we will describe two new applications of this technology for the development of prognostic biomarkers. The first biomarker is associated with the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma development in patients with compensated cirrhosis. The second biomarker is present in perfusate and is related to the risk of primary non function occurrence after liver transplantation. The technology used for these biomarkers could easily be implemented on routine capillary electrophoresis equipment