Explore the vast range of titles available.

Lipoprotein lipase (LPL), the enzyme that hydrolyzes triglycerides in plasma lipoproteins, is assumed to be active only as a homodimer. In support of this idea, several groups have reported that the size of LPL, as measured by density gradient ultracentrifugation, is ∼110 kDa, twice the size of LPL monomers (∼55 kDa). Of note, however, in those studies the LPL had been incubated with heparin, a polyanionic substance that binds and stabilizes LPL. Here we revisited the assumption that LPL is active only as a homodimer. When freshly secreted human LPL (or purified preparations of LPL) was subjected to density gradient ultracentrifugation (in the absence of heparin), LPL mass and activity peaks exhibited the size expected of monomers (near the 66-kDa albumin standard). GPIHBP1-bound LPL also exhibited the size expected for a monomer. In the presence of heparin, LPL size increased, overlapping with a 97.2-kDa standard. We also used density gradient ultracentrifugation to characterize the LPL within the high-salt and low-salt peaks from a heparin-Sepharose column. The catalytically active LPL within the high-salt peak exhibited the size of monomers, whereas most of the inactive LPL in the low-salt peak was at the bottom of the tube (in aggregates). Consistent with those findings, the LPL in the low-salt peak, but not that in the high-salt peak, was easily detectable with single mAb sandwich ELISAs, in which LPL is captured and detected with the same antibody. We conclude that catalytically active LPL can exist in a monomeric state.

OBJECTIVE:--Associated with insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes are increased serum triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, and a predominance of large VLDL, small LDL, and small HDL particles. The comparative effects of thiazolidinedione insulin sensitizers on serum lipoprotein particle concentrations and sizes in type 2 diabetes are not known. We studied the effects of pioglitazone (PIO) and rosiglitazone (ROSI) treatments on serum lipoprotein particle concentrations and sizes in type 2 diabetic patients with dyslipidemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS--This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group study. After a 4-week placebo washout period, patients randomized to PIO (n = 369) were treated with 30 mg q.d. for 12 weeks followed by 45 mg q.d. for another 12 weeks, while patients randomized to ROSI (n = 366) were treated with 4 mg q.d. followed by 4 mg b.i.d. for the same intervals. Lipoprotein subclass particle concentrations and sizes were determined by proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy at baseline and end point (PIO [n = 333] and ROSI [n = 325] patients). RESULTS:--PIO treatment increased total VLDL particle concentration less than ROSI treatment and decreased VLDL particle size more than ROSI. PIO treatment reduced total LDL particle concentration, whereas ROSI treatment increased it. Both treatments increased LDL particle size, with PIO treatment having a greater effect. Whereas PIO treatment increased total HDL particle concentration and size, ROSI treatment decreased them; both increased HDL cholesterol levels. CONCLUSIONS:--PIO and ROSI treatments have different effects on serum lipoprotein subclass particle concentrations and sizes in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia.

Elevated lipoprotein(a) concentrations are associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The safety and efficacy of lepodisiran, an extended-duration, small interfering RNA targeting hepatic synthesis of lipoprotein(a), are unknown. We randomly assigned participants in a 1:2:2:2:2 ratio to receive lepodisiran at a dose of 16 mg, 96 mg, or 400 mg at baseline and again at day 180, lepodisiran at a dose of 400 mg at baseline and placebo at day 180, or placebo at baseline and at day 180, all administered by subcutaneous injection. Data from the two groups that received lepodisiran at a dose of 400 mg at baseline were pooled for the primary analysis. The primary end point was the time-averaged percent change from baseline in the serum lipoprotein(a) concentration (lepodisiran difference from placebo [i.e., placebo-adjusted]) during the period from day 60 to day 180. A total of 320 participants underwent randomization; the median baseline lipoprotein(a) concentration was 253.9 nmol per liter. The placebo-adjusted time-averaged percent change from baseline in the serum lipoprotein(a) concentration from day 60 to day 180 was -40.8 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -55.8 to -20.6) in the 16-mg lepodisiran group, -75.2 percentage points (95% CI, -80.4 to -68.5) in the 96-mg group, and -93.9 percentage points (95% CI, -95.1 to -92.5) in the pooled 400-mg groups. The corresponding change from day 30 to day 360 was -41.2 percentage points (95% CI, -55.4 to -22.4), -77.2 percentage points (95% CI, -81.8 to -71.5), -88.5 percentage points (95% CI, -90.8 to -85.6), and -94.8 percentage points (95% CI, -95.9 to -93.4) in the 16-mg, 96-mg, 400-mg-placebo, and 400-mg-400-mg dose groups, respectively. Serious adverse events, none of which were deemed by investigators to be related to lepodisiran or placebo, occurred in 35 participants. Dose-dependent, generally mild injection-site reactions occurred in up to 12% (8 of 69) of the participants in the highest lepodisiran dose group. Lepodisiran reduced mean serum concentrations of lipoprotein(a) from 60 to 180 days after administration. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ALPACA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05565742.).

Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) are found in patients with various diseases, including cardiovascular diseases. We previously reported that copper-oxidized low-density lipoprotein (oxLDL) promotes NET formation of neutrophils, and that the resulting NETs increase the inflammatory responses of endothelial cells. In this study, we investigated the effects of high-density lipoproteins (HDL) on NET formation. HL-60-derived neutrophils were treated with phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) and further incubated with oxLDL and various concentrations of HDL for 2 h. NET formation was evaluated by quantifying extracellular DNA and myeloperoxidase. We found that the addition of native HDL partially decreased NET formation of neutrophils induced by oxLDL. This effect of HDL was lost when HDL was oxidized. We showed that oxidized phosphatidylcholines and lysophosphatidylcholine, which are generated in oxLDL, promoted NET formation of PMA-primed neutrophils, and NET formation by these products was completely blocked by native HDL. Furthermore, we found that an electronegative subfraction of LDL, LDL(–), which is separated from human plasma and is thought to be an in vivo oxLDL, was capable of promoting NET formation. These results suggest that plasma lipoproteins and their oxidative modifications play multiple roles in promoting NET formation, and that HDL acts as a suppressor of this response.

Recent studies point out that not only the daily intake of energy and nutrients but the time of day when they are ingested notably regulates lipid metabolism and cardiovascular risk (CVR). Therefore, the aim of the study was to assess if the type of fat ingested at breakfast can modify lipid metabolism in women with CVR. A randomized, crossover clinical trial was performed. Sixty volunteers were randomly assigned to a (A) polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA)-rich breakfast, (B) saturated fatty acid (SFA)-rich breakfast, or (C) monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA)-rich breakfast. Plasma lipoprotein and apolipoprotein subfractions were determined. Our data showed that the PUFA-rich breakfast decreased lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)), very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL), and intermediate-density lipoproteins (IDL), and increased high-density lipoproteins (HDL). A similar trend was observed for the MUFA-rich breakfast, whereas the SFA-rich breakfast, although it decreased VLDL, also increased IDL and reduced HDL. The PUFA-rich breakfast also decreased β-lipoproteins and apolipoprotein-B. In summary, varying the type of fat eaten at breakfast is enough to significantly modify the lipid metabolism of women with CVR, which can be of great relevance to establish new therapeutic strategies for the treatment of these subjects.

A protein that is expressed on capillary endothelial cells, called GPIHBP1 (glycosylphosphatidylinositol- anchored high-density lipoprotein binding protein 1), binds lipoprotein lipase and shuttles it to its site of action in the capillary lumen. A deficiency in GPIHBP1 prevents lipoprotein lipase from reaching the capillary lumen. Patients with GPIHBP1 deficiency have low plasma levels of lipoprotein lipase, impaired intravascular hydrolysis of triglycerides, and severe hypertriglyceridemia (chylomicronemia). During the characterization of a monoclonal antibody- based immunoassay for GPIHBP1, we encountered two plasma samples (both from patients with chylomicronemia) that contained an interfering substance that made it impossible to measure GPIHBP1. That finding raised the possibility that those samples might contain GPIHBP1 autoantibodies.METHODS Using a combination of immunoassays, Western blot analyses, and immunocytochemical studies, we tested the two plasma samples (as well as samples from other patients with chylomicronemia) for the presence of GPIHBP1 autoantibodies. We also tested the ability of GPIHBP1 autoantibodies to block the binding of lipoprotein lipase to GPIHBP1.RESULTSWe identified GPIHBP1 autoantibodies in six patients with chylomicronemia and found that these autoantibodies blocked the binding of lipoprotein lipase to GPIHBP1. As in patients with GPIHBP1 deficiency, those with GPIHBP1 autoantibodies had low plasma levels of lipoprotein lipase. Three of the six patients had systemic lupus erythematosus. One of these patients who had GPIHBP1 autoantibodies delivered a baby with plasma containing maternal GPIHBP1 autoantibodies; the infant had severe but transient chylomicronemia. Two of the patients with chylomicronemia and GPIHBP1 autoantibodies had a response to treatment with immunosuppressive agents.CONCLUSIONSIn six patients with chylomicronemia, GPIHBP1 autoantibodies blocked the ability of GPIHBP1 to bind and transport lipoprotein lipase, thereby interfering with lipoprotein lipase-mediated processing of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and causing severe hypertriglyceridemia.

The binding of lipoprotein lipase (LPL) to GPIHBP1 focuses the intravascular hydrolysis of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins on the surface of capillary endothelial cells. This process provides essential lipid nutrients for vital tissues (e.g., heart, skeletal muscle, and adipose tissue). Deficiencies in either LPL or GPIHBP1 impair triglyceride hydrolysis, resulting in severe hypertriglyceridemia. The activity of LPL in tissues is regulated by angiopoietin-like proteins 3, 4, and 8 (ANGPTL). Dogma has held that these ANGPTLs inactivate LPL by converting LPL homodimers into monomers, rendering them highly susceptible to spontaneous unfolding and loss of enzymatic activity. Here, we show that binding of an LPL-specific monoclonal antibody (5D2) to the tryptophan-rich lipid-binding loop in the carboxyl terminus of LPL prevents homodimer formation and forces LPL into a monomeric state. Of note, 5D2-bound LPL monomers are as stable as LPL homodimers (i.e., they are not more prone to unfolding), but they remain highly susceptible to ANGPTL4-catalyzed unfolding and inactivation. Binding of GPIHBP1 to LPL alone or to 5D2-bound LPL counteracts ANGPTL4-mediated unfolding of LPL. In conclusion, ANGPTL4-mediated inactivation of LPL, accomplished by catalyzing the unfolding of LPL, does not require the conversion of LPL homodimers into monomers. Thus, our findings necessitate changes to long-standing dogma on mechanisms for LPL inactivation by ANGPTL proteins. At the same time, our findings align well with insights into LPL function from the recent crystal structure of the LPL•GPIHBP1 complex.

GPIHBP1, an endothelial cell (EC) protein, captures lipoprotein lipase (LPL) within the interstitial spaces (where it is secreted by myocytes and adipocytes) and transports it across ECs to its site of action in the capillary lumen. GPIHBP1's 3-fingered LU domain is required for LPL binding, but the function of its acidic domain (AD) has remained unclear. We created mutant mice lacking the AD and found severe hypertriglyceridemia. As expected, the mutant GPIHBP1 retained the capacity to bind LPL. Unexpectedly, however, most of the GPIHBP1 and LPL in the mutant mice was located on the abluminal surface of ECs (explaining the hypertriglyceridemia). The GPIHBP1-bound LPL was trapped on the abluminal surface of ECs by electrostatic interactions between the large basic patch on the surface of LPL and negatively charged heparan sulfate proteoglycans (HSPGs) on the surface of ECs. GPIHBP1 trafficking across ECs in the mutant mice was normalized by disrupting LPL-HSPG electrostatic interactions with either heparin or an AD peptide. Thus, GPIHBP1's AD plays a crucial function in plasma triglyceride metabolism; it sheathes LPL's basic patch on the abluminal surface of ECs, thereby preventing LPL-HSPG interactions and freeing GPIHBP1-LPL complexes to move across ECs to the capillary lumen.

Lipoprotein(a) is similar to LDL cholesterol but contains apolipoprotein(a). A trial tested the effects of an oligonucleotide drug targeting apo(a) mRNA on lipoprotein(a) concentrations in patients with CVD.

Compare changes in lipids and lipid-associated cardiovascular (CV) risk markers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tocilizumab or adalimumab. Post-hoc analysis was performed in patients with RA who received tocilizumab intravenously every 4 weeks or adalimumab subcutaneously every 2 weeks for 24 weeks in the ADACTA trial. Lipid and lipid-associated CV risk biomarkers, including high-density lipoprotein-associated serum amyloid-A (HDL-SAA), secretory phospholipase A2 IIA (sPLA2 IIA) and lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), were measured at baseline and at week 8. The study included 162 patients treated with tocilizumab and 162 patients treated with adalimumab; HDL-SAA and sPLA2 IIA were measured in a subpopulation of 87 and 97 patients, respectively. Greater increases in mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (0.46 mmol/L (95% CI 0.30 to 0.62)), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (0.07 mmol/L (0.001 to 0.14)), total cholesterol (TC) (0.67 mmol/L (0.47 to 0.86)), triglycerides (0.24 mmol/L (0.10 to 0.38)) and TC:HDL ratio (0.27 (0.12 to 0.42)) occurred with tocilizumab from baseline to 8 weeks. HDL-SAA, sPLA2 IIA and Lp(a) decreased more with tocilizumab than adalimumab. Median changes from baseline to week 8 were -3.2 and -1.1 mg/L (p=0.0077) for HDL-SAA and -4.1 and -1.3 ng/mL (p<0.0001) for sPLA2 IIA; difference in adjusted means was -7.12 mg/dL (p<0.0001) for Lp(a). Similar results were observed in efficacy responders and non-responders per American College of Rheumatology and European League against Rheumatism criteria. LDL-C and HDL-C increased more with tocilizumab than adalimumab. HDL-SAA, sPLA2 IIA and Lp(a) decreased more with tocilizumab. Lipid change effects of interleukin-6 and tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibition, manifest by their net impact on lipids and lipoproteins, are not synonymous; the clinical significance is unclear and requires further study. NCT01119859.; post-results.