Search

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a serious therapy-limiting side effect of commonly used anticancer drugs. Previous studies suggest that lipids may play a role in CIPN. Therefore, the present study aimed to identify the particular types of lipids that are regulated as a consequence of paclitaxel administration and may be associated with the occurrence of post-therapeutic neuropathy. Methods: High-resolution mass spectrometry lipidomics was applied to quantify d=255 different lipid mediators in the blood of n=31 patients drawn before and after paclitaxel therapy for breast cancer treatment. A variety of supervised statistical and machine-learning methods was applied to identify lipids that were regulated during paclitaxel therapy or differed among patients with and without post-therapeutic neuropathy. Results: Twenty-seven lipids were identified that carried relevant information to train machine learning algorithms to identify, in new cases, whether a blood sample was drawn before or after paclitaxel therapy with a median balanced accuracy of up to 90%. One of the top hits, sphinganine1-phosphate (SA1P), was found to induce calcium transients in sensory neurons via the transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) channel and sphingosine-1-phosphate receptors.SA1P also showed different blood concentrations between patients with and without neuropathy. Conclusions: Present findings suggest a role for sphinganine-1-phosphate in paclitaxel-induced biological changes associated with neuropathic side effects. The identified SA1P, through its receptors, may provide a potential drug target for co-therapy with paclitaxel to reduce one of its major and therapy-limiting side effects. Funding: This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation, DFG, Grants SFB1039 A09 and Z01) and by the Fraunhofer Foundation Project: Neuropathic Pain as well as the Fraunhofer Cluster of Excellence for Immune-Mediated Diseases (CIMD). This work was also supported by the Leistungszentrum Innovative Therapeutics (TheraNova) funded by the Fraunhofer Society and the Hessian Ministry of Science and Arts. Jörn Lötsch was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG LO 612/16-1). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fold change is a common metric in biomedical research for quantifying group differences in omics variables. However, inconsistent calculation methods and inadequate reporting lead to discrepancies in results. This study evaluated various fold-change calculation methods aiming at a recommendation of a preferred approach. Methods: The primary distinction in fold-change calculations lies in defining group expected values for log ratio computation. To challenge method interchangeability in a "stress test" scenario, we generated diverse artificial data sets with varying distributions (identity, uniform, normal, log-normal, and a mixture of these) and compared calculated fold-changes to known values. Additionally, we analyzed a multi-omics biomedical data set to estimate to what extent the findings apply to real-world data. Results: Using arithmetic means as expected values for treatment and reference groups yielded inaccurate fold-change values more frequently than other methods, particularly when subgroup distributions and/or standard deviations differed significantly. Conclusions: The arithmetic mean method, often perceived as standard or picked without considering alternatives, is inferior to other definitions of the group expected value. Methods using median, geometric mean, or paired fold-change combinations are more robust against violations of equal variances or dissimilar group distributions. Adhering to methods less sensitive to data distribution without trade-offs and accurately reporting calculation methods in scientific reports is a reasonable practice to ensure correct interpretation and reproducibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical assessment of an individual's sense of smell has gained prominence, but its resource-intensive nature necessitates the exploration of self-administered methods. In this study, a cohort of 68 patients with olfactory loss and 55 controls were assessed using a recently introduced olfactory test. This test involves sorting 2 odorants (eugenol and phenylethyl alcohol) in 5 dilutions according to odor intensity, with an average application time of 3.5 min. The sorting task score, calculated as the mean of Kendall's Tau between the assigned and true dilution orders and normalized to [0,1], identified a cutoff for anosmia at a score ≤ 0.7. This cutoff, which marks the 90th percentile of scores obtained with randomly ordered dilutions, had a balanced accuracy of 89% (78% to 97%) for detecting anosmia, comparable to traditional odor threshold assessments. Retest evaluations suggested a score difference of ±0.15 as a cutoff for clinically significant changes in olfactory function. In conclusion, the olfactory sorting test represents a simple, self-administered approach to the detection of anosmia or preserved olfactory function. With balanced accuracy similar to existing brief olfactory tests, this method offers a practical and user-friendly alternative for screening anosmia, addressing the need for resource-efficient assessments in clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Loss of olfactory function is a typical acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptom, at least in early variants of SARS-CoV2. The time that has elapsed since the emergence of COVID-19 now allows for assessing the long-term prognosis of its olfactory impact. Participants (n = 722) of whom n = 464 reported having had COVID-19 dating back with a mode of 174 days were approached in a museum as a relatively unbiased environment. Olfactory function was diagnosed by assessing odor threshold and odor identification performance. Subjects also rated their actual olfactory function on an 11-point numerical scale [0,...10]. Neither the frequency of olfactory diagnostic categories nor olfactory test scores showed any COVID-19-related effects. Olfactory diagnostic categories (anosmia, hyposmia, or normosmia) were similarly distributed among former patients and controls (0.86%, 18.97%, and 80.17% for former patients and 1.17%, 17.51%, and 81.32% for controls). Former COVID-19 patients, however, showed differences in their subjective perception of their own olfactory function. The impact of this effect was substantial enough that supervised machine learning algorithms detected past COVID-19 infections in new subjects, based on reduced self-awareness of olfactory performance and parosmia, while the diagnosed olfactory function did not contribute any relevant information in this context. Based on diagnosed olfactory function, results suggest a positive prognosis for COVID-19-related olfactory loss in the long term. Traces of former infection are found in self-perceptions of olfaction, highlighting the importance of investigating the long-term effects of COVID-19 using reliable and validated diagnostic measures in olfactory testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]