MicroRNA signatures differentiate preserved from reduced ejection fraction heart failure

AIMS: Differentiation of heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction independent of echocardiography is challenging in the community. Diagnostic strategies based on monitoring circulating microRNA (miRNA) levels may prove to be of clinical value in the near future. The aim of this study was to identify a novel miRNA signature that could be a useful HF diagnostic tool and provide valuable clinical information on whether a patient has HFrEF or HFpEF.

METHODS AND RESULTS: MiRNA biomarker discovery was carried out on three patient cohorts, no heart failure (no-HF), HFrEF, and HFpEF, using Taqman miRNA arrays. The top five miRNA candidates were selected based on differential expression in HFpEF and HFrEF (miR-30c, -146a, -221, -328, and -375), and their expression levels were also different between HF and no-HF. These selected miRNAs were further verified and validated in an independent cohort consisting of 225 patients. The discriminative value of BNP as a HF diagnostic could be improved by use in combination with any of the miRNA candidates alone or in a panel. Combinations of two or more miRNA candidates with BNP had the ability to improve significantly predictive models to distinguish HFpEF from HFrEF compared with using BNP alone (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve >0.82).

CONCLUSION: This study has shown for the first time that various miRNA combinations are useful biomarkers for HF, and also in the differentiation of HFpEF from HFrEF. The utility of these biomarker combinations can be altered by inclusion of natriuretic peptide. MiRNA biomarkers may support diagnostic strategies in subpopulations of patients with HF.

Application of self-quenched JH consensus primers for real-time quantitative PCR of IGH gene to minimal residual disease evaluation in multiple myeloma.

Monitoring multiple myeloma patients for relapse requires sensitive methods to measure minimal residual disease and to establish a more precise prognosis. The present study aimed to standardize a real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for the IgH gene with a JH consensus self-quenched fluorescence reverse primer and a VDJH or DJH allele-specific sense primer (self-quenched PCR). This method was compared with allele-specific real-time quantitative PCR test for the IgH gene using a TaqMan probe and a JH consensus primer (TaqMan PCR). We studied nine multiple myeloma patients from the Spanish group treated with the MM2000 therapeutic protocol. Self-quenched PCR demonstrated sensitivity of >or=10(-4) or 16 genomes in most cases, efficiency was 1.71 to 2.14, and intra-assay and interassay reproducibilities were 1.18 and 0.75%, respectively. Sensitivity, efficiency, and residual disease detection were similar with both PCR methods. TaqMan PCR failed in one case because of a mutation in the JH primer binding site, and self-quenched PCR worked well in this case. In conclusion, self-quenched PCR is a sensitive and reproducible method for quantifying residual disease in multiple myeloma patients; it yields similar results to TaqMan PCR and may be more effective than the latter when somatic mutations are present in the JH intronic primer binding site.

Minimal residual disease monitoring in multiple myeloma: a comparison between allelic-specific oligonucleotide real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction and flow cytometry.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Minimal residual disease (MRD) studies are useful in multiple myeloma (MM). However, the definition of the best technique and clinical utility are still unresolved issues. The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the clinical utility of MRD studies in MM with two different techniques: allelic-specific oligonucleotide real-time quantitative PCR (ASO-RQ-PCR), and flow cytometry (FCM). DESIGN AND METHODS: Bone marrow samples from 32 MM patients who had achieved complete response after transplantation were evaluated by ASO-RQ-PCR, using TaqMan technology, and multiparametric FCM. RESULTS: ASO-RQ-PCR was only applicable in 75% of patients for a variety of technical reasons, while FCM was applicable in up to 90%. Therefore, simultaneous PCR/FCM analysis was possible in only 24 patients. The number of residual tumor cells identified by both techniques was very similar (mean=0.29%, range=0.001-1.61%, correlation coefficient=0.861). However, RQ-PCR was able to detect residual myelomatous cells in 17 patients while FCM only did so in 11; thus, 6 cases were FCM negative but PCR positive, all of them displaying a very low number of clonal cells (median=0.014%, range=0.001-0.11). Using an MRD threshold of 0.01% (10(-4)) two risk groups with significantly different progression-free survival could be identified by either PCR (34 vs. 15m, p=0.04) or FCM (27 vs. 10m, p=0.05). INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSIONS: Although MRD evaluation by ASO-RQ-PCR is slightly more sensitive and specific than FCM, it is applicable in a lower proportion of MM patients and is more time-consuming, while both techniques provide similar prognostic information.