{"title":"The value of plasma immunoproteasome for predicting coronary collateral circulation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction.","authors":"Zhao Ma, Meichen Sun, Baoen Zhang, Yifei Nie, Chenchen Tu, Xin Zhao, Huihua Li, Dongfeng Zhang, Xiantao Song, Hongjia Zhang","doi":"10.1080/17520363.2025.2520158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The immunoproteasome is linked to endothelial function and may act as a proangiogenic factor. This study explored its predictive value for coronary collateral circulation (CCC) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled 252 STEMI patients from April 2021 to April 2024. Plasma levels of LMP2, LMP7, and PSMB10 were measured using ELISA. ROC curves assessed predictive ability for good CCC. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses identified predictors, and restricted cubic spline (RCS) analysis evaluated the dose-response relationship. Subgroup analysis was also conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients with good CCC had significantly higher plasma levels of immunoproteasome components. Among them, LMP7 showed the best predictive value (AUC = 0.732), with an optimal cut-off of 3.824 ng/mL. Multivariate logistic regression confirmed LMP7 ≥3.824 ng/mL as an independent predictor for good CCC [OR = 7.914 (4.127-15.174)]. RCS analysis showed a J-shaped association: the odds of good CCC increased notably when LMP7 exceeded 3.824 ng/mL. Subgroup analyses supported these findings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Higher plasma immunoproteasome levels, especially LMP7 ≥3.824 ng/mL, were independently associated with good CCC in STEMI patients, suggesting its potential role as a biomarker of collateral development.</p>","PeriodicalId":9182,"journal":{"name":"Biomarkers in medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomarkers in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17520363.2025.2520158","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The immunoproteasome is linked to endothelial function and may act as a proangiogenic factor. This study explored its predictive value for coronary collateral circulation (CCC) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients.
Methods: We enrolled 252 STEMI patients from April 2021 to April 2024. Plasma levels of LMP2, LMP7, and PSMB10 were measured using ELISA. ROC curves assessed predictive ability for good CCC. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses identified predictors, and restricted cubic spline (RCS) analysis evaluated the dose-response relationship. Subgroup analysis was also conducted.
Results: Patients with good CCC had significantly higher plasma levels of immunoproteasome components. Among them, LMP7 showed the best predictive value (AUC = 0.732), with an optimal cut-off of 3.824 ng/mL. Multivariate logistic regression confirmed LMP7 ≥3.824 ng/mL as an independent predictor for good CCC [OR = 7.914 (4.127-15.174)]. RCS analysis showed a J-shaped association: the odds of good CCC increased notably when LMP7 exceeded 3.824 ng/mL. Subgroup analyses supported these findings.
Conclusion: Higher plasma immunoproteasome levels, especially LMP7 ≥3.824 ng/mL, were independently associated with good CCC in STEMI patients, suggesting its potential role as a biomarker of collateral development.
期刊介绍:
Biomarkers are physical, functional or biochemical indicators of physiological or disease processes. These key indicators can provide vital information in determining disease prognosis, in predicting of response to therapies, adverse events and drug interactions, and in establishing baseline risk. The explosion of interest in biomarker research is driving the development of new predictive, diagnostic and prognostic products in modern medical practice, and biomarkers are also playing an increasingly important role in the discovery and development of new drugs. For the full utility of biomarkers to be realized, we require greater understanding of disease mechanisms, and the interplay between disease mechanisms, therapeutic interventions and the proposed biomarkers. However, in attempting to evaluate the pros and cons of biomarkers systematically, we are moving into new, challenging territory.
Biomarkers in Medicine (ISSN 1752-0363) is a peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal delivering commentary and analysis on the advances in our understanding of biomarkers and their potential and actual applications in medicine. The journal facilitates translation of our research knowledge into the clinic to increase the effectiveness of medical practice.
As the scientific rationale and regulatory acceptance for biomarkers in medicine and in drug development become more fully established, Biomarkers in Medicine provides the platform for all players in this increasingly vital area to communicate and debate all issues relating to the potential utility and applications.
Each issue includes a diversity of content to provide rounded coverage for the research professional. Articles include Guest Editorials, Interviews, Reviews, Research Articles, Perspectives, Priority Paper Evaluations, Special Reports, Case Reports, Conference Reports and Company Profiles. Review coverage is divided into themed sections according to area of therapeutic utility with some issues including themed sections on an area of topical interest.
Biomarkers in Medicine provides a platform for commentary and debate for all professionals with an interest in the identification of biomarkers, elucidation of their role and formalization and approval of their application in modern medicine. The audience for Biomarkers in Medicine includes academic and industrial researchers, clinicians, pathologists, clinical chemists and regulatory professionals.