CDK7 as a Potential Exploratory Biomarker for Distinguishing Acute Myocardial

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Awais Mehmood, Romesa Tahir
{"title":"CDK7 as a Potential Exploratory Biomarker for Distinguishing Acute Myocardial","authors":"Awais Mehmood,&nbsp;Romesa Tahir","doi":"10.1002/clc.70396","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We read with interest the article by Ripon et al. regarding the differential expression of DNA damage response (DDR) genes across STEMI and NSTEMI subtypes in a Bangladeshi cohort [<span>1</span>]. This study provides valuable data on South Asian populations, an underrepresented group in cardiovascular genomics. The authors' identification of CDK7 as a subtype-specific gene elevated in NSTEMI and significantly after clinical adjustment is a notable finding.</p><p>However, we must raise a significant methodological concern regarding the exclusive use of GAPDH as the reference gene for qRT-PCR normalization. This choice has substantial implications for the interpretation of the findings. GAPDH encodes a central glycolytic enzyme, and its expression is well-documented to fluctuate under the hypoxic and oxidative stress conditions intrinsic to acute myocardial ischemia. As demonstrated by Zhong and Simons [<span>2</span>], GAPDH mRNA levels are significantly upregulated during hypoxia, whereas many other housekeeping genes remain stable.</p><p>In the context of this study, this issue is critical because STEMI and NSTEMI differ fundamentally in ischemic severity. STEMI involves complete coronary occlusion and more profound hypoxia, while NSTEMI typically involves partial occlusion with relatively preserved perfusion. If GAPDH expression varies in proportion to the ischemic burden, a biologically plausible scenario, its use as a normalization control introduces a systematic bias. It is possible that the observed upregulation of CDK7 in NSTEMI relative to STEMI reflects altered GAPDH expression in the more severely ischemic STEMI group rather than a true difference in CDK7 transcriptional activity.</p><p>The Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE) [<span>3</span>] guidelines strongly recommend the use of at least two validated reference genes to ensure normalization reliability. Relying on a single, unvalidated reference gene, especially one prone to context-dependent variability, fails to meet these rigorous standards. Established tools, such as the geNorm algorithm introduced by Vandesompele et al., [<span>4</span>] provide a framework for identifying the most stable reference genes across specific experimental conditions and represent the standard practice for gene expression studies in pathological states.</p><p>We recommend that follow-up studies validate at least two or three reference genes before normalization. Genes such as HPRT1, B2M, and RPL13A have shown more stable expression under ischemic stress. Tools such as geNorm, NormFinder, or BestKeeper make this achievable and are now widely used in published qRT-PCR work. On a practical note, if raw GAPDH <i>C</i><sub>t</sub> values are still accessible, a direct comparison between the STEMI and NSTEMI groups would quickly clarify whether GAPDH fluctuation contributed to the CDK7 differences observed.</p><p>Without confirming GAPDH stability across groups, it is genuinely difficult to determine whether the CDK7 difference reflects true subtype-specific biology or a normalization artifact. This is not a minor technical point; the study's central conclusion depends on it. We appreciate the authors' transparency in outlining study limitations and hope this methodological feedback contributes to the continued success of their research.</p><p>The authors have read and approved the final version of this letter.</p><p>The authors have nothing to report.</p><p>The authors have nothing to report.</p><p>The authors have nothing to report.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p><p>Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no data sets were generated or analyzed during the current study.</p>","PeriodicalId":10201,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Cardiology","volume":"49 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/clc.70396","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clc.70396","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We read with interest the article by Ripon et al. regarding the differential expression of DNA damage response (DDR) genes across STEMI and NSTEMI subtypes in a Bangladeshi cohort [1]. This study provides valuable data on South Asian populations, an underrepresented group in cardiovascular genomics. The authors' identification of CDK7 as a subtype-specific gene elevated in NSTEMI and significantly after clinical adjustment is a notable finding.

However, we must raise a significant methodological concern regarding the exclusive use of GAPDH as the reference gene for qRT-PCR normalization. This choice has substantial implications for the interpretation of the findings. GAPDH encodes a central glycolytic enzyme, and its expression is well-documented to fluctuate under the hypoxic and oxidative stress conditions intrinsic to acute myocardial ischemia. As demonstrated by Zhong and Simons [2], GAPDH mRNA levels are significantly upregulated during hypoxia, whereas many other housekeeping genes remain stable.

In the context of this study, this issue is critical because STEMI and NSTEMI differ fundamentally in ischemic severity. STEMI involves complete coronary occlusion and more profound hypoxia, while NSTEMI typically involves partial occlusion with relatively preserved perfusion. If GAPDH expression varies in proportion to the ischemic burden, a biologically plausible scenario, its use as a normalization control introduces a systematic bias. It is possible that the observed upregulation of CDK7 in NSTEMI relative to STEMI reflects altered GAPDH expression in the more severely ischemic STEMI group rather than a true difference in CDK7 transcriptional activity.

The Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE) [3] guidelines strongly recommend the use of at least two validated reference genes to ensure normalization reliability. Relying on a single, unvalidated reference gene, especially one prone to context-dependent variability, fails to meet these rigorous standards. Established tools, such as the geNorm algorithm introduced by Vandesompele et al., [4] provide a framework for identifying the most stable reference genes across specific experimental conditions and represent the standard practice for gene expression studies in pathological states.

We recommend that follow-up studies validate at least two or three reference genes before normalization. Genes such as HPRT1, B2M, and RPL13A have shown more stable expression under ischemic stress. Tools such as geNorm, NormFinder, or BestKeeper make this achievable and are now widely used in published qRT-PCR work. On a practical note, if raw GAPDH Ct values are still accessible, a direct comparison between the STEMI and NSTEMI groups would quickly clarify whether GAPDH fluctuation contributed to the CDK7 differences observed.

Without confirming GAPDH stability across groups, it is genuinely difficult to determine whether the CDK7 difference reflects true subtype-specific biology or a normalization artifact. This is not a minor technical point; the study's central conclusion depends on it. We appreciate the authors' transparency in outlining study limitations and hope this methodological feedback contributes to the continued success of their research.

The authors have read and approved the final version of this letter.

The authors have nothing to report.

The authors have nothing to report.

The authors have nothing to report.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no data sets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

CDK7作为鉴别急性心肌的潜在探索性生物标志物。
我们饶有兴趣地阅读了Ripon等人关于孟加拉国队列bbb中STEMI和NSTEMI亚型之间DNA损伤反应(DDR)基因差异表达的文章。这项研究为南亚人群提供了有价值的数据,南亚人群在心血管基因组学中代表性不足。作者发现CDK7是一个亚型特异性基因,在NSTEMI中升高,并在临床调整后显著升高,这是一个值得注意的发现。然而,对于GAPDH作为qRT-PCR归一化的内参基因的独家使用,我们必须提出一个重要的方法学问题。这一选择对研究结果的解释具有重大意义。GAPDH编码一种中心糖酵解酶,有充分证据表明,在急性心肌缺血所固有的缺氧和氧化应激条件下,其表达会波动。正如Zhong和Simons[2]所证明的,GAPDH mRNA水平在缺氧时显著上调,而许多其他管家基因保持稳定。在本研究的背景下,这个问题是至关重要的,因为STEMI和NSTEMI在缺血严重程度上存在根本差异。STEMI包括完全冠状动脉闭塞和更深度的缺氧,而NSTEMI通常包括部分闭塞和相对保留的灌注。如果GAPDH的表达与缺血负荷成比例地变化,这在生物学上是合理的,那么将其用作规范化控制会引入系统性偏差。在NSTEMI中观察到的CDK7相对于STEMI的上调可能反映了更严重缺血STEMI组GAPDH表达的改变,而不是CDK7转录活性的真正差异。定量实时PCR实验最小公示信息(MIQE)[3]指南强烈建议使用至少两个经过验证的内参基因以确保归一化可靠性。依赖于一个单一的,未经验证的参考基因,特别是一个容易依赖环境的变异,不能满足这些严格的标准。已建立的工具,如Vandesompele等人引入的geNorm算法,提供了在特定实验条件下识别最稳定的内参基因的框架,并代表了病理状态下基因表达研究的标准实践。我们建议在规范化前进行随访研究,验证至少两到三个内参基因。HPRT1、B2M、RPL13A等基因在缺血应激下表达更加稳定。geNorm, NormFinder或BestKeeper等工具可以实现这一目标,并且现在广泛用于已发表的qRT-PCR工作。实际上,如果仍然可以获得原始的GAPDH Ct值,那么在STEMI组和NSTEMI组之间进行直接比较将很快澄清GAPDH波动是否导致了所观察到的CDK7差异。在没有确认GAPDH跨组稳定性的情况下,很难确定CDK7差异是否反映了真正的亚型特异性生物学或标准化伪像。这不是一个次要的技术问题;这项研究的中心结论依赖于此。我们感谢作者在概述研究局限性方面的透明度,并希望这种方法反馈有助于他们的研究继续取得成功。作者已经阅读并批准了这封信的最终版本。作者没有什么可报告的。作者没有什么可报告的。作者没有什么可报告的。作者声明无利益冲突。数据共享不适用于本文,因为在本研究中没有生成或分析数据集。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Cardiology
Clinical Cardiology 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
189
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Cardiology provides a fully Gold Open Access forum for the publication of original clinical research, as well as brief reviews of diagnostic and therapeutic issues in cardiovascular medicine and cardiovascular surgery. The journal includes Clinical Investigations, Reviews, free standing editorials and commentaries, and bonus online-only content. The journal also publishes supplements, Expert Panel Discussions, sponsored clinical Reviews, Trial Designs, and Quality and Outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书