Independent education resourceInformation here does not replace care from a qualified health professional.
Peptide Therapy GuideClear peptide education

Educational guide

Disease Biomarkers Reflect Genetics and Lifestyle, Too

While biomarkers may be used to diagnose disease, the ups and downs of biological molecules may not depend entirely on whether a particular disease is present. Protein levels in the blood stream, for example, may vary with individual genetic, clinical, and lif

Written by Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team
For education only

This guide cannot diagnose a condition or recommend a personal treatment plan. Discuss medical questions with a qualified professional.

While biomarkers may be used to diagnose disease, the ups and downs of biological molecules may not depend entirely on whether a particular disease is present. Protein levels in the blood stream, for example, may vary with individual genetic, clinical, and lifestyle factors.

This observation isn’t exactly novel. Biomarkers for specific diseases have been linked with lifestyle and demographic factors. For example, in a study of diabetes that considered how well the disease could be predicted by assessing levels of a protein called sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG), relevant factors were found to include age, reproductive history, usage of exogenous estrogen, body mass index, physical activity, alcohol consumption, coffee intake, smoking, and various dietary factors.

When these findings appeared last year, study leader Simin Liu, M.D., a professor of epidemiology and medicine at Brown University, said, “This protein seems to capture the cumulative effect between the gene and our environment in reflecting a metabolic state of our body, particularly in the liver, ultimately affecting diabetes risk.”

If individual genetic and lifestyle factors can influence one biomarker, they can presumably influence many other biomarkers. Yet biomarkers used for diagnosing disease should preferably indicate variations in protein levels only for those individuals who are suffering from a particular disease. Nor should they vary for reasons that have nothing to do with the disease.

To address this issue in a systematic way, researchers from Uppsala University recently conducted a large-scale study of non-disease-related factors that can influence protein levels in the bloodstream. Specifically, the researchers, led by Stefan Enroth, Ph.D., analyzed 92 protein biomarkers for cancer and inflammation in a clinical study of 1,000 healthy individuals.

The results of the study appeared August 22 in Nature Communications, in an article entitled, “Strong effects of genetic and lifestyle factors on biomarker variation and use of personalized cutoffs.” According to this article, hereditary factors play a significant role for more than 75% of the proteins, and a detailed genetic analysis demonstrates 16 genes with a strong effect on protein levels.

“These results are important, as they show which variables are significant for variations in the measurable values,” explained Dr. Enroth. “If these factors are known, we have a greater possibility of seeing variations and we get clearer breakpoints between elevated values and normal values. By extension this may lead to the possibility of using more biomarkers clinically.”

According to the study, genetics and lifestyle together account in some cases for more than 50% of variations in protein levels among healthy individuals. This means that information about both genetic and lifestyle factors must be taken into account in order for protein biomarkers to be used effectively.

Dr. Enroth kindly responded to a few questions.

GEN: Could your investigation be regarded as an application of proteomics?

Dr. Enroth: Yes, in a broad sense, I would say so. But this would perhaps differ when you ask somebody else.

GEN: Was accounting for personal variations across dozens of proteins a data-intensive activity?

Dr. Enroth: In the first stage, such as reported in the paper, yes. But most of the CPU time has been used on the genetic associations, mainly because of the sheer numbers of variants that have been characterized in the human genome. After the models are built, not really. Calculating the residuals is fast.

GEN: How would personalized cutoffs be determined?

Dr. Enroth: We envision that studies such as ours, possible larger and encompassing also ethnicity (genetic markers such as SNPs have different baseline frequencies in different parts of the world), will determine factors that influence the circulating levels of the proteins. In a clinical setting, a biomarker level would be monitored in a patient, and this level would then be recalculated given your personal facts—your age, your weight, what medications you use, etc., and then compared to a predefined value to determine if your levels are deviating.

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

Source-derived material selected through this article’s indexed topics.

Related questions

01Undruggable or unscreenable?

Another obstacle to discovering new PPI inhibitors is the lack of libraries designed to hunt for them, points out Philippe Roche, PhD, senior scientist at the Integrative Structural and Chemical Biology team at the Cancer Research Center of Marseilles, France. “If you screen PPIs using libraries that were designed for kinases or GPCRs, that’s why you don’t get a lot of good results,” he says. To that end, his group began assembling a library focused on orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs. The result was 2P2Idb, a hand-curated, structural database cataloguing orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs for which the interface had been 3D characterized. From analyzing these known PPI inhibitors, and what structures they had in common, Roche and his colleagues developed a model to predict whether compounds would likely inhibit PPIs. Using this method, 2P2Idb creates an enriched screening library that dramatically increases the hit rate compared to standard libraries. Having proven their success with a small library of 1600 compounds, they are in the process of expanding the library to 10,000 compounds. Once that’s published, “the idea is to make this library available to labs around the world,” Roche says. “We will provide the library free of charge for people to be able to screen PPI targets.”

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
02How stable is the antibody?

A crucial question often addressed during preclinical development focuses on the in vivo stability of therapeutic antibodies. Increasing the half-life of a therapeutic antibody has several benefits ranging from higher treatment efficacy to increased advantages for the patients who will have a fewer number of therapy sessions and a reduced cost. Given these compelling benefits, following the identification of therapeutic antibodies with the desired specificity, developers usually subject them to a refinement step to increase their stability. This process is often hindered by the lack of reliable experimental tools to predict the half-life of antibodies in patients. The major hurdle of using mouse models to predict antibody stability in the serum lies in the way immunoglobulin proteins are processed by the organism. In mammals, most proteins circulating in the serum undergo constant uptake by endothelial cells and are routed through the endosomes to the lysosomal compartment for degradation. In the endosomes, immunoglobulin G (IgG) proteins are recognized and bound by a transmembrane protein, called the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which mediates their recycling to the plasma membrane and subsequent release back into the serum. As a result, the half-life of IgGs are significantly extended by this mechanism. Since most therapeutic antibodies belong to the IgG class, this recycling system is very relevant for their relative stability in the body. Remarkably, the relative affinity between IgGs and FcRn is extremely disparate between different species, with the mouse receptor showing a much higher affinity than its human counterpart.

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →