4.7 Article

Sphingolipid composition of circulating extracellular vesicles after myocardial ischemia

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-73411-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [IZCOZ0_182948/1]
  2. Cardiocentro Ticino Foundation
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [IZCOZ0_182948] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sphingolipids are structural components of cell membrane, displaying several functions in cell signalling. Extracellular vesicles (EV) are lipid bilayer membrane nanoparticle and their lipid composition may be different from parental cells, with a significant enrichment in sphingolipid species, especially in pathological conditions. We aimed at optimizing EV isolation from plasma and describing the differential lipid content of EV, as compared to whole plasma. As pilot study, we evaluated the diagnostic potential of lipidomic signature of circulating EV in patients with a diagnosis of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). STEMI patients were evaluated before reperfusion and 24-h after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Twenty sphingolipid species were quantified by liquid-chromatography tandem-mass-spectrometry. EV-ceramides, -dihydroceramides, and -sphingomyelins increased in STEMI vs. matched controls and decreased after reperfusion. Their levels correlated to hs-troponin, leucocyte count, and ejection fraction. Plasma sphingolipids levels were 500-to-700-fold higher as compared to EV content; nevertheless, only sphingomyelins differed in STEMI vs. control patients. Different sphingolipid species were enriched in EV and their linear combination by machine learning algorithms accurately classified STEMI patients at pre-PCI evaluation. In conclusion, EV lipid signature discriminates STEMI patients. These findings may contribute to the identification of novel biomarkers and signaling mechanisms related to cardiac ischemia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据