Heterozygous apolipoprotein (a) status and protein expression as a risk factor for premature coronary heart disease

Lipoprotein (a) as a cause of cardiovascular disease: insights from epidemiology, genetics, and biology

Human epidemiologic and genetic evidence using the Mendelian randomization approach in large-scale studies now strongly supports that elevated lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease, that is, for myocardial infarction, atherosclerotic stenosis, and aortic valve stenosis. The Mendelian randomization approach used to infer causality is generally not affected by confounding and reverse causation, the major problems of observational epidemiology. This approach is particularly valuable to study causality of Lp(a), as single genetic variants exist that explain 27-28% of all variation in plasma Lp(a). The most important genetic variant likely is the kringle IV type 2 (KIV-2) copy number variant, as the apo(a) product of this variant influences fibrinolysis and thereby thrombosis, as opposed to the Lp(a) particle per se. We speculate that the physiological role of KIV-2 in Lp(a) could be through wound healing during childbirth, infections, and injury, a role that, in addition, could lead to more blood clots promoting stenosis of arteries and the aortic valve, and myocardial infarction. Randomized placebo-controlled trials of Lp(a) reduction in individuals with very high concentrations to reduce cardiovascular disease are awaited. Recent genetic evidence documents elevated Lp(a) as a cause of myocardial infarction, atherosclerotic stenosis, and aortic valve stenosis.

Lipoprotein (a) in patients with spontaneous venous thromboembolism

INTRODUCTION

Elevated lipoprotein (a) (Lp (a)) has been established as a risk factor of coronary heart disease and stroke. Findings concerning the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in adults are contradictory. The aim of our study was to investigate, whether elevated Lp (a) levels are an independent risk factor of spontaneous symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE). Our study was further designed to detect differences in risk profiles between thrombosis patients with and without symptomatic PE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We investigated Lp (a) in 128 patients with spontaneous symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT, group 1), 105 with spontaneous symptomatic pulmonary embolism with or without DVT (PE, group 2) and 122 healthy controls. Lp (a) was measured with an immunoturbidimetric assay (Tina-quant(R), Roche, Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany) on a Hitachi-Modular system.

RESULTS

Lp (a) levels (mg/L) were not significantly different among groups, median levels (25th-75th percentiles) were 170 (51-386) in group 1, 140 (<20-427) in group 2 and 126 (54-331) in controls, respectively. As continuous variable, odds ratios for VTE for a 100 mg/L increase of Lp (a) were 1.1 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.2] for group 1 versus controls and 1.1 [0.95-1.2] for group 2 versus controls. The prevalence of Lp (a) above 300 mg/L was not significantly different among patients and controls (group 1: 30%, group 2: 32% and controls: 25%, p=0.4, p=0.2, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion we found no association between Lp (a) and VTE regardless whether DVT occurred together with PE or not.

Electrophoretic measurement of lipoprotein(a) cholesterol in plasma with and without ultracentrifugation: comparison with an immunoturbidimetric lipoprotein(a) method

OBJECTIVES

Elevated plasma lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a significant risk factor for vascular disease. Standardization of Lp(a) mass measurement is complicated by the heterogeneity of apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)]. We investigated whether Lp(a) cholesterol measurement, which is not influenced by apo(a) size, is a viable alternative to measuring Lp(a) mass.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Plasma Lp(a) cholesterol was measured electrophoretically, with and without ultracentrifugation, and results were compared to each other and to immunoturbidimetrically measured Lp(a) mass in 470 subjects.

RESULTS

Ultracentrifuged and whole plasma Lp(a) cholesterol levels demonstrated high correlation (R = 0.964). All samples with detectable (>/=2.0 mg/dl) Lp(a) cholesterol had Lp(a) mass >30 mg/dl (the clinically relevant cutpoint), while 59 samples with Lp(a) mass >30 mg/dl did not have detectable Lp(a) cholesterol.

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) cholesterol can be measured in whole plasma without interference from VLDL lipoproteins. The relative clinical merits of measuring Lp(a) cholesterol vs. Lp(a) mass or both in combination deserves investigation.

Evaluation of a fully-automated particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay for the measurement of plasma lipoprotein(a). population-based reference values in an area with low incidence of cardiovascular disease

OBJECTIVES

Lipoprotein(a) has been proposed as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. This lipoprotein possesses a marked size polymorphism that makes difficult to measure accurately its concentration in plasma. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry recently recommended to carefully evaluate new commercial methods for lipoprotein(a) measurement to discard the possible influence of lipoprotein(a) isoforms on immunoreactivity. They also recommended to perform population-based studies for different ethnic and geographic groups. Therefore, in the evaluation of a fully automated, particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay for the measurement of lipoprotein(a) we have determined its reference interval in the Spanish population, an area with the lowest incidence of cardiovascular disease in Europe.

DESIGN AND METHOD

We evaluated a commercial kit of reagents calibrated against the Proposed Reference Material and determined the effect of lipoprotein(a) size polymorphism on the measurements. A population-based study was carried out in two different villages on the Mediterranean coast of Spain.

RESULTS

Imprecision at different lipoprotein(a) concentrations ranged between 3.0 and 15.4%. Recovery was 98.5 +/- 2.1. Detection limit was 4.8 nmol/L. There were no significant interferences from lipemia, jaundice, hemolysis, paraproteinemia, apolipoprotein B or plasminogen. We did not observe any effect of the lipoprotein(a) size polymorphism on the measurements. Mean (and SD) values for plasma lipoprotein(a) (n = 369) were 53.6 (65.3) nmol/L, the median was = 25.3 nmol/L and range varied between <4.8 and 356.0 nmol/L.

CONCLUSION

The present article presents an accurate and practical assay for measuring plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations and describes its reference values in a population of Spanish Caucasians. Our results are similar to those obtained in other Caucasian populations (between 10 and 25% higher than in participants of the CARDIA study).

Lipoprotein(a) and the atherothrombotic process: mechanistic insights and clinical implications

Although many epidemiologic studies have pointed at an association between plasma levels of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and cardiovascular risk, the data obtained have been conflicting because of a number of factors, particularly those dealing with plasma storage, lack of assay standardization, population sample size, age, gender, ethnic variations, and variable disease endpoints. Moreover, the attention has been primarily focused on whole Lp(a), with relatively less emphasis on its constituent apolipoprotein(a) and on the apolipoprotein B100-containing lipoprotein, mainly low-density lipoprotein (LDL), to which apolipoprotein(a) is linked. According to recent studies, small-size apolipoprotein(a) isoforms may represent a cardiovascular risk factor either by themselves or synergistically with plasma Lp(a) concentration. Moreover, the density properties of the LDL moiety may have an impact on Lp(a) pathogenicity. It has also become apparent that Lp(a) can be modified by oxidative events and by the action of lipolytic and proteolytic enzymes with the generation of products that exhibit atherothrombogenic potential. The role of the O-glycans linked to the inter-kringle linkers of apolipoprotein(a) is also emerging. This information is raising the awareness of the pleiotropic functions of Lp(a) and is opening new vistas on pathogenetic mechanisms whose knowledge is essential for developing rational therapies against this complex cardiovascular pathogen.

Differences between Genotyping and Phenotyping Methods for Assessing Apolipoprotein(a) Size Polymorphisms

The aim of the present study was to analyze, on a double-blind basis, the relationships between the apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) gene and protein size polymorphisms in healthy volunteers (n = 99) and patients with premature myocardial infarction (n = 91). Apo(a) genotypes were determined by pulse-field electrophoresis and phenotypes were separated by sodium dodecyl sulfate-agarose gel electrophoresis. Results showed that phenotyping overestimated apo(a) size with respect to genotyping (mean (SD) = 3.7 (3.4) kringle units; p < 0.001) in subjects with a double-band genotype, although both measurements were highly correlated (r = 0.83; p < 0.001). We also observed that the protein band in subjects with a single-band phenotype was related more closely to the smallest allele than to the largest allele band. The correlation of plasma lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) concentration was stronger with the phenotype than with the genotype. We hypothesize that post-translational modifications in the apo(a) molecule may be the most plausible explanation for the discrepancies observed. In conclusion, the present study highlights the dissimilarities between phenotyping and genotyping methods for the measurement of apo(a) size and suggests that laboratories should carefully consider these relationships and the transfer of results between such methodologies.