Flyer

Translational Biomedicine

  • ISSN: 2172-0479
  • Journal h-index: 12
  • Journal CiteScore: 8.06
  • Journal Impact Factor: 1.0
  • Average acceptance to publication time (5-7 days)
  • Average article processing time (30-45 days) Less than 5 volumes 30 days
    8 - 9 volumes 40 days
    10 and more volumes 45 days
20+ Million Readerbase
Indexed In
  • Open J Gate
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • JournalTOCs
  • ResearchBible
  • The Global Impact Factor (GIF)
  • China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)
  • CiteFactor
  • Scimago
  • Electronic Journals Library
  • Directory of Research Journal Indexing (DRJI)
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • Proquest Summons
  • Publons
  • MIAR
  • University Grants Commission
  • Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research
  • Google Scholar
  • Secret Search Engine Labs
  • ResearchGate
Share This Page

Short Communication - (2017) Volume 8, Issue 1

The Growth/Differentiation Factor-15 in Chronic Heart Failure: New Challenge in Biomarker-Guided Therapy?

Alexander E Berezin*

Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University, Zaporozhye, Ukraine

*Corresponding Author:

Berezin AE
Medical University, Zaporozhye, Ukraine
Tel: +380612894585
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Received date: January 28, 2017; Accepted date: February 01, 2017; Published date: February 06, 2017

Citation: Berezin AE. The Growth/Differentiation Factor-15 in Chronic Heart Failure: New Challenge in Biomarker-Guided Therapy. Transl Biomed. 2017, 8:1. doi:10.2167/2172-0479.1000103

Visit for more related articles at Translational Biomedicine

Abstract

Heart failure (HF) biomarker-guided therapy is promising method, which directs to improving of clinical status, attenuation of admission/readmission to the hospital and reduces of mortality rate. Many biological markers, i.e. inflammatory cytokines, are under consideration as a surrogate target for HF treatment, while there is known biomarkers with established predictive value, such as natriuretic peptides. However, discovery of new biomarkers reflecting various underlying mechanisms of HF and appearing to be surrogate targets for biomarkerguided therapy is promising. Nowadays, growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) is suggested a target biomarker for HF treatment. Although elevated level of GDF-15 associated with HF development, progression, and prognosis, there is not represented evidence regarding direct comparison of this biomarker with other clinical risk predictors and biomarkers. Moreover, GDF-15 might serve as a contributor to endothelial progenitor cells (EPC) dysfunction by inducing EPC death/autophagy and limiting their response to angiopoetic and reparative effects. The short communication is discussed whether GDF-15 is good molecular target for HF guided therapy.

Keywords

Heart failure; Growth/differentiation factor-15; Progenitor endothelial cell; Biomarkers.

Introduction

Heart failure (HF) associating with a significant socioeconomic burden, high rates of hospital admission and cardiovascular (CV) mortality remains a major healthcare problem worldwide [1,2]. Although widely used clinical guidelines represented by European Society of Cardiology and American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association are in particularly depicted biomarker-guided therapy of HF to improve clinical outcomes and prognosis, there is not completely agreement regarding the role of various biomarkers as a surrogate target of HF care [3]. The hypothesis that intensified therapy of outpatients with different phenotypes of HF (i.e. HF with reduced ejection fraction ([HFrEF], HF with preserved ejection fraction ([HFpEF], and probably HF with mid-regional ejection fraction ([HFmrEF]) under continuously monitoring of some surrogate biomarkers (mainly natriuretic peptides [NPs] and probably soluble ST, cardiac troponins, galectin-3, pro-adrenomedullin) could be better than traditional treatment in a way to improve prognosis appears to be promising [4-6]. Information gathered in the large randomized clinical trials presumably addressed to NPs and comprehensive meta-analyses have revealed that the goal of the HF therapy suggested as lowered biomarker concentration up 30% and more has not been achieved in the majority of the patients and could relate to HF phenotypes [7-9]. Other leading limitations of NPs-guided therapy was pretty accurate, but fairly hard criteria of successful treatment of HF, high biological variation of NPs in several individuals with HFrEF, HFmrEF, HFpEF, co-existing comorbidities, such as obesity and older age, which influenced independently on NP concentrations [10,11]. Therefore, evidence received from meta-analysis did not support a strong benefit for elderly HF patients treated with NPs-guided strategy versus conventional therapy [12-14]. Consequently, the hypothesis mentioned above has not really been tested and, unfortunately, it has not still incorporated into routine clinical practice [15,16]. In this context, discovery of new biomarkers reflecting various underlying mechanisms of HF and appearing to be surrogate targets for biomarker-guided therapy is fairly promising.

Moving across this issue, recent clinical trials have shown that inflammatory biomarkers including growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) predicted HF severity and prognosis in patients with HFpEF and HFrEF [17-19]. GDF-15 belongs to cytokine’ super family of the transforming growth factor-beta and widely expressed at the various cells, tissues and organs [20]. GDF-15 is secreted in response to inflammation, oxidative stress, hypoxia, telomere erosion, oncogene activation and regulates cell growth and tissue differentiation [21]. Elevated concentrations of GDF-15 were found in patients with known CV diseases, i.e. cardiac hypertrophy, HF, atherosclerosis, stable coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, as well as in hypertension, diabetes mellitus, abdominal obesity, chronic kidney disease, and malignancy [22-24]. Recent clinical studies have shown that GDF-15 independently predicted allcause mortality rate and CV death rate in patients with coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation and HFpEF and HFrEF [24,25]. Moreover, GDF-15 has able to identify a vulnerable subjects in general population without known CV disease, prediabetes and diabetes mellitus [23]. Resl, et al. [25] reported that elevated level of GDF-15 have independently associated with subsequent CV event and 10-year all-cause mortality even after adjusting for well-established CV risk factors and widely used cardiac biomarkers (NT-pro brain NP, cardiac troponins, hs-C-reactive protein). However, there is not agreement regarding an issue about whether or not that an elevated GDF-15 level in peripheral blood is adaptive response in HF individuals aiming recovery of vascular function. Consequently, if this suggestion is wrong, whether lowered circulating level of GDF-15 could be a surrogate target for adequate HF care.

There is a large body of evidence regarding that vascular reparation could enhance EPCs, which exhibit powerful tissue protective capacity and may differentiate into mature endothelial cells under effect of microenvironment, paracrine regulators, and appropriate growth factors, e.g. GDF-15 [26]. Indeed, EPCs have determined primitive cells originated from precursors found in the bone marrow and peripheral blood [27]. The ability of EPCs for self-renewal and differentiation into mature endothelial cells has recently been under intense investigation [28] and remains of high interest for regenerative medicine [29]. Recent pre-clinical and clinical studies have shown a key role of bone marrow EPCs in the endothelial repair, angiogenesis, neovascularization, and attenuation of vascular function, whereas EPCs derived from peripheral blood cells including circulating mononuclears are under tight epigenetic control, and several paracrine and metabolic mechanisms and they are considered a central mechanism of immediate reparative response of injury [30]. There is evidence regarding that the both subpopulations of EPCs are mobilized or released into systemic circulation in response to specific stimuli.

There are at least two types of EPCs labelled as early outgrowth EPCs and late outgrowth EPCs and isolated from similar source [31]. Both subpopulations of EPCs have expressed CD144, Flt-1, KDR (VEGFR2), and CD45 markers in different manner. Late outgrowths EPCs produced more nitric oxide, incorporated more into human umbilical vein ECs monolayer, and are able to better form capillary tube than early EPC [32]. Early EPC secreted more pro-angiogenic cytokines (VEGF and interleukin-8) than late EPC at culture [33]. Moreover, early EPCs intervened in the monolayer of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC), but more late EPCs were incorporated to HUVEC [34]. Overall both subpopulations of EPC might distinguish one another in ability to differentiate into circulating angiogenic cells (referred as early EPCs), shaping endothelial colony cells (referred as late outgrowth EPCs), and inducing vasculogenesis.

Taking into consideration the regulatory capacity of GDF-15 on numerous and functionality of circulating EPCs, there are not strong suggestions that lowered GDF-15 level could be adaptive reaction in contemporary treated HF patients with expecting predictive ability. Rather lowered GDF-15 might serve as a contributor to EPC dysfunction by inducing EPC death/autophagy and limiting their response to angiopoetic effect. Contrary, GDF-15-related recruitment of EPCs may be a powerful mechanism of endothelial repair and maintenance vascular function if development and progression of HF. Finally, GDF-15 is probably not good target for biomarkerguided therapy, although there are some investigations with opposite conclusions [24,25]. Although elevated level of GDF-15 associated with HF development, progression, and prognosis, there is not represented evidence regarding direct comparison of this biomarker with other clinical risk predictors and biomarkers [35].

In conclusion, large clinical studies are required to explain whether GDF-15 could be promising biomarker to stratify HF individuals at CV risk. Moreover, there is not clearly understood whether lower GDF-15 concentration during HF therapy is favorable effect associated with improve clinical outcomes. Whether use of GDF-15 as a surrogate target for biomarker-based therapy of HF remains under scientific discussion and the usefulness of GDF-15 to guide HF management decision should be obligatory investigated.

18251

References

  1. Filippatos G, Farmakis D, Bistola V, Karavidas A, Mebazaa A, et al. (2014) Temporal trends in epidemiology, clinical presentation and management of acute heart failure: Results from the Greek cohorts of the acute heart failure global registry of standard treatment and the European Society of cardiology-heart failure pilot survey. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care.
  2. Rajadurai J, Tse HF, Wang CH, Yang NI, Zhou J, et al. (2017) Understanding the epidemiology of heart failure to improve management practices: An Asia-Pacific perspective. J Card Fail.
  3. Thomsen MM, Lewinter C, Kber L (2016) Varying effects of recommended treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in the ESC and ACCF/AHA guidelines. ESC Heart Fail 3:235-244.
  4. Garrido V, Mendoza-Torres E, Riquelme JA, A, Pizarro M, et al. (2013) Novel therapies targeting cardioprotection and regeneration. Curr Pharm Des. 2017.
  5. Wu AH, Wians F, Jaffe A. Biological variation of galectin-3 and soluble ST2 for chronic heart failure: implication on interpretation of test results. Am Heart J 165: 995-999.
  6. Lupn J, de Antonio M, Gal A, Vila J, Zamora E, Urrutia A, Bayes-Genis A, et al. (2013) Combined use of the novel biomarkers high-sensitivity troponin T and ST2 for heart failure risk stratification vs conventional assessment. Mayo Clin Proc88:234-243.
  7. Bayes-Genis A, Lup J, Jaffe AS (2016) Can natriuretic peptides be used to guide therapy? EJIFCC27:208-216.
  8. Porapakkham P, Porapakkham P, Zimmet H, Billah B (2010) Krum H B-type natriuretic peptide-guided heart failure therapy: A meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med170: 507-514.
  9. Karlstrom P, Alehagen U, Boman K, DahlstrÃm U (2011) UPSTEP-study group Brain natriuretic peptide-guided treatment does not improve morbidity and mortality in extensively treated patients with chronic heart failure: Responders to treatment have a significantly better outcome. Eur J Heart Fail 13: 1096-1103.
  10. Savarese G, trimarco B, Dellegrotaglie S, Prastaro M, Gambardella F, et al. (2013) Natriuretic-peptide guided therapy I chronic heart failure: A meta-analysis of 2,686 patients in 12 randomized trials. Plos One 8:e58287.
  11. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE, et al. (2013) American college of cardiology foundation; American heart association task force on practice guidelines. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: A report of the American college of cardiology foundation/American heart association task force on practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol62: e147-e239.
  12. Januzzi JL Jr, Rehman SU, Mohammed AA, Bhardwaj A, Barajas L, et al. (2011) Use of amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide to guide outpatient therapy of patients with chronic left ventricular systolic dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol58:1881-1889.
  13. Savarese G, Musella F, D'Amore C, Vassallo E, Losco T, et al. (2014) Changes of natriuretic peptides predict hospital admissions in patients with chronic heart failure: Ameta-analysis. JACC Heart Fail 2: 148-158.
  14. Felker GM, Hasselblad V, Hernandez AF, OConnor CM (2009) Biomarker guided therapy in chronic heart failure: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am Heart J 158: 422-430.
  15. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JG, et al. (2016) 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). developed with the special contribution of the heart failure association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur J Heart Fail 18: 891-975.
  16. Tschpe C, Messroghli D, Schnrath F, Krabatsch T, Pieske B (2015) Treatment of chronic heart failure: What's not (yet) in the guidelines. DTSCH Med Wochenschr 140:406-412.
  17. Hage C, Micha‚lsson E, Linde C, Donal E, Daubert JC, et al. (2017) Inflammatory biomarkers predict heart failure severity and prognosis in patients withheart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A holistic proteomic approach. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 10.
  18. Berezin AE, Kremzer AA, Martovitskaya YV, Berezina TA, Gromenko EA (2016) Pattern of endothelial progenitor cells and apoptotic endothelial cell-derived microparticles in chronic heart failure patients with preserved and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. EBioMedicine 4: 86-94.
  19. Berezin AE, Kremzer AA, Martovitskaya YV, Berezina TA, Samura TA (2016) The utility of biomarker risk prediction score in patients with chronic heart failure. Clin hypertens 22: 3.
  20. Wollert KC, Kempf T, Wallentin L (2017) Growth differentiataion factor 15 as a biomarker in cardiovascular disease. Clin Chem 63: 140-151.
  21. Kempf T, Wollert KC (2009) Growth differentiation factor-15: A new biomarker in cardiovascular disease. Herz 34: 594-599.
  22. Berezin AE (2016) Biomarkers for cardiovascular risk in diabetic patients. Heart 102:1939-1941.
  23. Berezin AE (2016) Diabetes mellitus related biomarker: The predictive role of growth-differentiation factor-15. Diabetes Metab Syndr10: 154-157.
  24. Adela R, Banerjee SK (2015) GDF-15 as a target and biomarker for diabetes and cardiovascular diseases: A translational prospective. J Diabetes Res 2015:490842.
  25. Resl M, Clodi M, Vila G, Luger A, Neuhold S, et al. (2016) Targeted multiple biomarker approach in predicting cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes. Heart 102: 1963-1968.
  26. Berezin A (2016) Epigenetics in heart failure phenotypes. BBA Clinical. 6: 31-37.
  27. Asahara T, Murohara T, Sullivan A, Silver M, van der Zee R,et al. (1997) Isolation of putative progenitor endothelial cells for angiogenesis. Science 275: 964-967.
  28. Asahara T (2007) Endothelial progenitor cells for vascular medicine. Yakugaku Zasshi 127:841-845.
  29. Abe Y, Ozaki Y, Kasuya J, Yamamoto K, Ando J, et al. (2013) Endothelial progenitor cells promote directional three-dimensional endothelial network formation by secreting vascular endothelial growth factor. PLoS One 8:e82085.
  30. Berezin A (2016) Impaired immune phenotype of endothelial cell-derived microparticles: the missed link between diabetes-related states and cardiovascular complications? J Data Mining Genom Proteom 7: 195-197.
  31. Hur J, Yoon CH, Kim HS, Choi JH, Kang HJ, et al. (2004) Characterization of two types of endothelial progenitor cells and their different contributions to neovasculogenesis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 24: 288-293.
  32. Lin Y, Weisdorf DJ, Solovey A, Hebbel RP (2000) Origins of circulating endothelial cells and endothelial outgrowth from blood. J Clin Invest 105:71-77.
  33. Schmeisser A, Garlichs CD, Zhang H, Eskafi S, Graffy C, et al. (2001) Monocytes coexpress endothelial and macrophagocytic lineage markers and form cord-like structures in Matrigel under angiogenic conditions. Cardiovasc Res 49: 671-680.
  34. Vaughan EE, O'Brien T (2012) Isolation of circulating angiogenic cells. Methods Mol Biol 916:351-356.
  35. Friedrich EB, Walenta K, Scharlau J, Nickenig G, Werner N (2006) CD34-/CD133+/VEGFR-2+ endothelial progenitor cell subpopulation with potent vasoregenerative capacities. Circ Res 98: e20-e25.