| Title |
Cardiac myosin-binding protein C: a potential early biomarker of myocardial injury
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Basic Research in Cardiology, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00395-015-0478-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James O. Baker, Raymond Tyther, Christoph Liebetrau, James Clark, Robert Howarth, Tiffany Patterson, Helge Möllmann, Holger Nef, Pierre Sicard, Balrik Kailey, Renuka Devaraj, Simon R. Redwood, Gudrun Kunst, Ekkehard Weber, Michael S. Marber |
| Abstract |
Cardiac troponins are released and cleared slowly after myocardial injury, complicating the diagnosis of early, and recurrent, acute myocardial infarction. Cardiac myosin-binding protein C (cMyC) is a similarly cardiac-restricted protein that may have different release/clearance kinetics. Using novel antibodies raised against the cardiac-specific N-terminus of cMyC, we used confocal microscopy, immunoblotting and immunoassay to document its location and release. In rodents, we demonstrate rapid release of cMyC using in vitro and in vivo models of acute myocardial infarction. In patients, with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI, n = 20), undergoing therapeutic ablation of septal hypertrophy (TASH, n = 20) or having coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG, n = 20), serum was collected prospectively and frequently. cMyC appears in the serum as full-length and fragmented protein. Compared to cTnT measured using a contemporary high-sensitivity commercial assay, cMyC peaks earlier (STEMI, 9.3 ± 3.1 vs 11.8 ± 3.4 h, P < 0.007; TASH, 9.7 ± 1.4 vs 21.6 ± 1.4 h, P < 0.0001), accumulates more rapidly (during first 4 h after TASH, 25.8 ± 1.9 vs 4.0 ± 0.4 ng/L/min, P < 0.0001) and disappears more rapidly (post-CABG, decay half-time 5.5 ± 0.8 vs 22 ± 5 h, P < 0.0001). Our results demonstrate that following defined myocardial injury, the rise and fall in the serum of cMyC is more rapid than that of cTnT. We speculate that these characteristics could enable earlier diagnosis of myocardial infarction and reinfarction in suspected non-STEMI, a population not included in this early translational study. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 18% |
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 39% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 20 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2023.
All research outputs
#3,013,890
of 24,657,405 outputs
Outputs from Basic Research in Cardiology
#35
of 700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,759
of 269,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Basic Research in Cardiology
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,657,405 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 700 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.