- Email: [email protected]
Biomarkers of Reflux Disease
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2016;-:-–-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47Q5 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
59 60 61 62 Readers are encouraged to write letters to the editor concerning articles that have been published in Clinical Gastroenterology 63 and Hepatology. Short, general comments are also considered, but use of the Letters to the Editor section for publication of original data in preliminary form is not encouraged. Letters should be typewritten and submitted electronically to http://www. 64 editorialmanager.com/cgh. 65 66 67 e-cadherin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit. Blood Biomarkers of Reflux Disease 68 samples were collected into heparin tubes and centrifuged 69 for 10 minutes, and the serum was kept at –20 C. Serum Dear Editor: 70 e-cadherin levels were measured by enzyme-linked 1 71 The article by Kia et al pointed out that they have not immunosorbent assay with an immunoassay kit (Sunred 72 come across a reliable marker for gastroesophageal reflux Biological Tech, Shanghai, China) according to the manu73 disease (GERD). One of the interesting points they raised facturer’s directions. The samples from patients and con74 was the role of e-cadherin, a calcium-mediated membrane trols were analyzed in duplicates. The absorbance of the 75 molecule that plays an important role in cell-cell interac- samples was measured by using FLUOStar Omega Micro76 tion as well as adhesion and differentiation of epithelial plateReader (BMG Labtech, Cary, NC) at 450 nm. The level 77 cells.2 of protein was obtained through standard solutions pro78 They referred to a study by Jovov et al3 that demon- vided with the kit. 79 strated that the detection of cleaved fragments of We did not find any significant difference in e-cadherin 80 e-cadherin can be used as a biomarker of GERD. mean values between the 2 GERD subgroups and healthy 81 E-cadherin exists in the different epithelia including the controls (Table 1). 82 esophagus, and in a mixed group of GERD patients, paraA main difference between our results is the report83 cellular permeability increased, presumably associated ing of analysis of e-cadherin. Jovov et al3 reported that a 84 with the cleavage of e-cadherin. The N-terminal segment of serum value >1.6 mg/mL had a sensitivity of 90% and the protein was detectable in significantly higher levels in specificity of 100% for erosive esophagitis group versus Q2 85 86 GERD patients (n ¼ 9) than in healthy controls (n ¼ 10), healthy control group. Our results show the mean serum 87 without significant differences between non-erosive reflux value was about 10 ng/mL (0.01 mg) and not related to 88 disease and erosive subgroups. Kia et al1 pointed out that the severity of mucosal damage. E-cadherin is not spe89 these findings were intriguing and need to be tested in cific for the esophagus and may increase in different 90 larger numbers of subjects. pathologies especially in malign tumors including pros91 To test this hypothesis, we analyzed 3 groups of patients tate, lung, breast, gastric, and colon carcinomas.4,5 It has 92 (13 with erosive esophagitis, 9 with true non-erosive reflux been reported that the serum e-cadherin levels were 93 disease, and 20 healthy controls; 23 women). All patients significantly elevated in several acute and chronic 94 had undergone upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, high- inflammatory diseases such as acute pancreatitis,6 but its 95 resolution solid state esophageal manometry, and diagnostic or prognostic role is unclear.7 Limited data 96 24-hour intraesophageal ambulatory pH impedance exist about the importance of serum levels of e-cadherin monitoring. All tests were performed off proton pump otherwise. Chung et al2 showed that in patients with Q3 97 98 inhibitor for at least 7 days. Subjects who had undergone esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent 99 the colonoscopy for surveillance without any upper surgical resection without neoadjuvant therapy, serum 100 gastrointestinal symptom were constituted the healthy e-cadherin was an independent prognostic factor. 101 control group. We performed only upper gastrointestinal In summary, we could not prove that serum 102 endoscopy in that group. Serum e-cadherin levels were e-cadherin levels constitute a valuable biomarker for GERD. 103 determined spectrophotometrically by using human 104 SERHAT BOR, MD Q6 105 Table 1. --Ege Reflux Study Group 106 Division of Gastroenterology Gender Age E-cadherin levels, mean 107 School of Medicine (M/F) (y) standard deviation (ng/mL) 108 Ege University 109 Healthy 7/13 51.7 9.13 6.24 Izmir, Turkey 110 controls PELIN ERGUN, PhD Non-erosive 5/4 45 11.61 7.37 111 reflux Ege Reflux Study Group 112 disease Division of Gastroenterology 113 Erosive 7/6 44.1 10.42 6.59 School of Medicine 114 esophagitis Ege University 115 Izmir, Turkey 116
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
COR 5.4.0 DTD YJCGH54923_proof 3 October 2016 11:30 pm ce CLR
2 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127
Letter to the Editor
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology Vol.
SEZGI KIPCAK, PhD Ege Reflux Study Group Division of Gastroenterology School of Medicine Ege University Izmir, Turkey
3.
Jovov B, et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:1039–1047.
4.
Wang B, et al. Clin Biochem 2016;22.
5.
Tamura G. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:192–198.
6.
Sewpaui A, et al. HPB Surg 2009;2009:1–6.
7.
Baniak N, et al. World J Surg Oncol 2016;14:212.
Conflicts of interest The authors disclose no conflicts.
References 1.
Kia L, et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;14:790–797.
2.
Chung Y, et al. Dis Esophagus 2011;24:49–55.
-,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2016.09.136
COR 5.4.0 DTD YJCGH54923_proof 3 October 2016 11:30 pm ce CLR
No.
-
Q4
Q1
128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47Q5 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
59 60 61 62 Readers are encouraged to write letters to the editor concerning articles that have been published in Clinical Gastroenterology 63 and Hepatology. Short, general comments are also considered, but use of the Letters to the Editor section for publication of original data in preliminary form is not encouraged. Letters should be typewritten and submitted electronically to http://www. 64 editorialmanager.com/cgh. 65 66 67 e-cadherin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit. Blood Biomarkers of Reflux Disease 68 samples were collected into heparin tubes and centrifuged 69 for 10 minutes, and the serum was kept at –20 C. Serum Dear Editor: 70 e-cadherin levels were measured by enzyme-linked 1 71 The article by Kia et al pointed out that they have not immunosorbent assay with an immunoassay kit (Sunred 72 come across a reliable marker for gastroesophageal reflux Biological Tech, Shanghai, China) according to the manu73 disease (GERD). One of the interesting points they raised facturer’s directions. The samples from patients and con74 was the role of e-cadherin, a calcium-mediated membrane trols were analyzed in duplicates. The absorbance of the 75 molecule that plays an important role in cell-cell interac- samples was measured by using FLUOStar Omega Micro76 tion as well as adhesion and differentiation of epithelial plateReader (BMG Labtech, Cary, NC) at 450 nm. The level 77 cells.2 of protein was obtained through standard solutions pro78 They referred to a study by Jovov et al3 that demon- vided with the kit. 79 strated that the detection of cleaved fragments of We did not find any significant difference in e-cadherin 80 e-cadherin can be used as a biomarker of GERD. mean values between the 2 GERD subgroups and healthy 81 E-cadherin exists in the different epithelia including the controls (Table 1). 82 esophagus, and in a mixed group of GERD patients, paraA main difference between our results is the report83 cellular permeability increased, presumably associated ing of analysis of e-cadherin. Jovov et al3 reported that a 84 with the cleavage of e-cadherin. The N-terminal segment of serum value >1.6 mg/mL had a sensitivity of 90% and the protein was detectable in significantly higher levels in specificity of 100% for erosive esophagitis group versus Q2 85 86 GERD patients (n ¼ 9) than in healthy controls (n ¼ 10), healthy control group. Our results show the mean serum 87 without significant differences between non-erosive reflux value was about 10 ng/mL (0.01 mg) and not related to 88 disease and erosive subgroups. Kia et al1 pointed out that the severity of mucosal damage. E-cadherin is not spe89 these findings were intriguing and need to be tested in cific for the esophagus and may increase in different 90 larger numbers of subjects. pathologies especially in malign tumors including pros91 To test this hypothesis, we analyzed 3 groups of patients tate, lung, breast, gastric, and colon carcinomas.4,5 It has 92 (13 with erosive esophagitis, 9 with true non-erosive reflux been reported that the serum e-cadherin levels were 93 disease, and 20 healthy controls; 23 women). All patients significantly elevated in several acute and chronic 94 had undergone upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, high- inflammatory diseases such as acute pancreatitis,6 but its 95 resolution solid state esophageal manometry, and diagnostic or prognostic role is unclear.7 Limited data 96 24-hour intraesophageal ambulatory pH impedance exist about the importance of serum levels of e-cadherin monitoring. All tests were performed off proton pump otherwise. Chung et al2 showed that in patients with Q3 97 98 inhibitor for at least 7 days. Subjects who had undergone esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent 99 the colonoscopy for surveillance without any upper surgical resection without neoadjuvant therapy, serum 100 gastrointestinal symptom were constituted the healthy e-cadherin was an independent prognostic factor. 101 control group. We performed only upper gastrointestinal In summary, we could not prove that serum 102 endoscopy in that group. Serum e-cadherin levels were e-cadherin levels constitute a valuable biomarker for GERD. 103 determined spectrophotometrically by using human 104 SERHAT BOR, MD Q6 105 Table 1. --Ege Reflux Study Group 106 Division of Gastroenterology Gender Age E-cadherin levels, mean 107 School of Medicine (M/F) (y) standard deviation (ng/mL) 108 Ege University 109 Healthy 7/13 51.7 9.13 6.24 Izmir, Turkey 110 controls PELIN ERGUN, PhD Non-erosive 5/4 45 11.61 7.37 111 reflux Ege Reflux Study Group 112 disease Division of Gastroenterology 113 Erosive 7/6 44.1 10.42 6.59 School of Medicine 114 esophagitis Ege University 115 Izmir, Turkey 116
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
COR 5.4.0 DTD YJCGH54923_proof 3 October 2016 11:30 pm ce CLR
2 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127
Letter to the Editor
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology Vol.
SEZGI KIPCAK, PhD Ege Reflux Study Group Division of Gastroenterology School of Medicine Ege University Izmir, Turkey
3.
Jovov B, et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:1039–1047.
4.
Wang B, et al. Clin Biochem 2016;22.
5.
Tamura G. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:192–198.
6.
Sewpaui A, et al. HPB Surg 2009;2009:1–6.
7.
Baniak N, et al. World J Surg Oncol 2016;14:212.
Conflicts of interest The authors disclose no conflicts.
References 1.
Kia L, et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016;14:790–797.
2.
Chung Y, et al. Dis Esophagus 2011;24:49–55.
-,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2016.09.136
COR 5.4.0 DTD YJCGH54923_proof 3 October 2016 11:30 pm ce CLR
No.
-
Q4
Q1
128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138