Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Apr 5;7(14):17885-95.
doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.7530.

CEACAM1 and MICA as novel serum biomarkers in patients with acute and recurrent pericarditis

Affiliations

CEACAM1 and MICA as novel serum biomarkers in patients with acute and recurrent pericarditis

Gal Markel et al. Oncotarget. .

Abstract

Background: The immune response plays a significant role in pericarditis, but the mechanisms of disease are poorly defined. Further, efficient monitoring and predictive clinical tools are unavailable. Carcinoembryonic antigen cell adhesion molecule 1 (CEACAM1) is an immune-inhibitory protein, while MHC class I chain related protein A (MICA) and B (MICB) have an immune-stimulating function.

Methods and results: Serum CEACAM1, MICA and MICB concentrations were measured by ELISA in ~50 subjects of each group: acute pericarditis (AP), recurrent pericarditis (RP) and lupus (SLE) patients, metastatic melanoma patients as well as healthy donors. Serum CEACAM1 was dramatically elevated in AP and RP patients, but not in SLE patients, and displayed a highly accurate profile in ROC curve analyses. MICA and MICB were elevated in some pericarditis patients. All markers were enhanced in metastatic melanoma patients irrespective of neoplastic pericardial involvement. Etiology-guided analysis of RP patients showed that very low MICA levels were associated with idiopathic RP, while high MICA was associated with autoimmune and post-operative RP. Importantly, MICA was significantly associated with recurrences, independently of other potentially confounding parameters such as age, time of follow up or treatment modality.

Conclusions: Here we report for the first time on CEACAM1 as a potentially novel biomarker for pericarditis, as well as on MICA as an innovative prognostic marker in these patients. Determination of the roles of these immune factors, as well as their diagnostic and prognostic values should be determined in future prospective studies.

Keywords: MICA; MICB; biomarkers; pericarditis; serum.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

There are no financial conflicts of interests to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution analysis of inflammatory biomarkers
Distribution analysis of each of the indicated biomarkers according to serum concentrations (y-axis) in each group of subjects: healthy donors (Healthy), acute pericarditis patients (AP), recurrent pericarditis patients (RP), systemic lupus erythematosis patients (SLE), metastatic melanoma (Mel) with or without pericardial involvement (+/− eff). Boxes and Whiskers present all data, horizontal line reflects the median value. Statistical significance was tested with Kruskal-Wallis test: ***denotes P < 0.0001, **denotes P < 0.01 and *denotes P < 0.05.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution analysis of biomarkers in healthy donors
(A) Distribution analysis of each of the indicated biomarkers according to serum concentrations (X-axis). Y-axis denotes the number of patients (frequency); (B) Correlation of each biomarker with age among the healthy donors. Correlation was tested with Spearman's test, the R and P values are indicated in each plot.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of biomarker levels between healthy donors and patients
(A) Serum levels of CEACAM1, MICA and MICB among four subject populations: healthy donors (Healthy), acute pericarditis patients (AP), recurrent pericarditis patients (RP), systemic lupus erythematosis patients (SLE) and metastatic melanoma (MM) with or without pericardial involvement (+/− eff). Each dot represents a patient. Statistical significance was tested with Kruskal-Wallis test: ***denotes P < 0.0001, **denotes P < 0.01 and *denotes P < 0.05; (BD) ROC curves of each biomarker (indicate in the top of the Figure) for each group of patients (indicated in the left). Area Under the Curve (AUC) is indicated in each plot.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Distribution of RP patients exhibiting high values of biomarkers according to etiological groups
Figure shows the percentage of RP patients exhibiting biomarker values in the highest tertile. Patients are categorized in each of the indicated etiological groups.

References

    1. Spodick DH. Pericardial diseases. Philadelpiha: WB Saunders & Co; 2001.
    1. Maisch B, Seferovic PM, Ristic AD, Erbel R, Rienmuller R, Adler Y, Tomkowski WZ, Thiene G, Yacoub MH. Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases executive summary; The Task force on the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases of the European society of cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2004;25:587–610. - PubMed
    1. Robinson J, Brigden W. Recurrent pericarditis. Br Med J. 1968;2:272–275. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shabetai R. Recurrent pericarditis: recent advances and remaining questions. Circulation. 2005;112:1921–1923. - PubMed
    1. Fowler NO. Recurrent pericarditis. Cardiol Clin. 1990;8:621–626. - PubMed

Publication types