Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 16824202

Gene expression in acute Stanford type A dissection: a comparative microarray study.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We compared gene expression profiles in acutely dissected aorta with those in normal control aorta. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ascending aorta specimen from patients with an acute Stanford A-dissection were taken during surgery and compared with those from normal ascending aorta from multiorgan donors using the BD Atlas Human1.2 Array I, BD Atlas Human Cardiovascular Array and the Affymetrix HG-U133A GeneChip. For analysis only genes with strong signals of more than 70 percent of the mean signal of all spots on the array were accepted as being expressed. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was used to confirm regulation of expression of a subset of 24 genes known to be involved in aortic structure and function. RESULTS: According to our definition expression profiling of aorta tissue specimens revealed an expression of 19.1% to 23.5% of the genes listed on the arrays. Of those 15.7% to 28.9% were differently expressed in dissected and control aorta specimens. Several genes that encode for extracellular matrix components such as collagen IV alpha2 and -alpha5, collagen VI alpha3, collagen XIV alpha1, collagen XVIII alpha1 and elastin were down-regulated in aortic dissection, whereas levels of matrix metalloproteinases-11, -14 and -19 were increased. Some genes coding for cell to cell adhesion, cell to matrix signaling (e.g., polycystin1 and -2), cytoskeleton, as well as several myofibrillar genes (e.g., alpha-actinin, tropomyosin, gelsolin) were found to be down-regulated. Not surprisingly, some genes associated with chronic inflammation such as interleukin -2, -6 and -8, were up-regulated in dissection. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the complexity of the dissecting process on a molecular level. Genes coding for the integrity and strength of the aortic wall were down-regulated whereas components of inflammatory response were up-regulated. Altered patterns of gene expression indicate a pre-existing structural failure, which is probably a consequence of insufficient remodeling of the aortic wall resulting in further aortic dissection.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Barbara Theresia Weis-Müller, Olga Modlich, Irina Drobinskaya, Derya Unay, Rita Huber, Hans Bojar, Jochen D Schipke, Peter Feindt, Emmeran Gams, Wolfram Müller, Timm Goecke, Wilhelm Sandmann. 2006-07-06. Gene expression in acute Stanford type A dissection: a comparative microarray study.. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-4-29

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗