Advertisement

Molecular Medicine

, Volume 17, Issue 11–12, pp 1306–1310 | Cite as

Circulating Damage Marker Profiles Support a Neuroprotective Effect of Erythropoietin in Ischemic Stroke Patients

  • Hannelore Ehrenreich
  • Anne Kästner
  • Karin Weissenborn
  • Jackson Streeter
  • Swetlana Sperling
  • Kevin K. Wang
  • Hans Worthmann
  • Ronald L. Hayes
  • Nico von Ahsen
  • Andreas Kastrup
  • Andreas Jeromin
  • Manfred Herrmann
Research Article

Abstract

The German Multicenter EPO Stroke Trial, which investigated safety and efficacy of erythropoietin (EPO) treatment in ischemic stroke, was formally declared a negative study. Exploratory subgroup analysis, however, revealed that patients not receiving thrombolysis most likely benefited from EPO during clinical recovery, a result demonstrated in the findings of the Göttingen EPO Stroke Study. The present work investigated whether the positive signal on clinical outcome in this patient subgroup was mirrored by respective poststroke biomarker profiles. All patients of the German Multicenter EPO Stroke Trial nonqualifying for thrombolysis were included if they (a) were treated per protocol and (b) had at least two of the five follow-up blood samples for circulating damage markers drawn (n = 163). The glial markers S100B and glial fibrillary acid protein (GFAP) and the neuronal marker ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase (UCH-L1) were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in serum on d 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 poststroke. All biomarkers increased poststroke. Overall, EPO-treated patients had significantly lower concentrations (area under the curve) over 7 d of observation, as reflected by the composite score of all three markers (Cronbach α = 0.811) and by UCH-L1. S100B and GFAP showed a similar tendency. To conclude, serum biomarker profiles, as an outcome measure of brain damage, corroborate an advantageous effect of EPO in ischemic stroke. In particular, reduction in the neuronal damage marker UCH-L1 may reflect neuroprotection by EPO.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Max Planck Society and Banyan Biomarkers, Inc.

References

  1. 1.
    Brines M, Cerami A. (2005) Emerging biological roles for erythropoietin in the nervous system. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6:484–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sargin D, Friedrichs H, El-Kordi A, Ehrenreich H. (2010) Erythropoietin as neuroprotective and neuroregenerative treatment strategy: comprehensive overview of 12 years of preclinical and clinical research. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Anaestesiol. 24:573–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ehrenreich H, et al. (2002) Erythropoietin therapy for acute stroke is both safe and beneficial. Mol. Med. 8:495–505.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ehrenreich H, et al. (2009) Recombinant human erythropoietin in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 40:e647–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jia L, Chopp M, Zhang L, Lu M, Zhang Z. (2010) Erythropoietin in combination of tissue plasminogen activator exacerbates brain hemorrhage when treatment is initiated 6 hours after stroke. Stroke. 41:2071–6.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zechariah A, ElAli A, Hermann DM. (2010) Combination of tissue-plasminogen activator with erythropoietin induces blood-brain barrier permeability, extracellular matrix disaggregation, and DNA fragmentation after focal cerebral ischemia in mice. Stroke. 41:1008–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herrmann M, Vos P, Wunderlich MT, de Bruijn CH, Lamers KJ. (2000) Release of glial tissue-specific proteins after acute stroke: a comparative analysis of serum concentrations of protein S-100B and glial fibrillary acidic protein. Stroke. 31:2670–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Papa L, et al. (2010) Ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase is a novel biomarker in humans for severe traumatic brain injury. Crit. Care Med. 38:138–44.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lewis SB, et al. (2010) Identification and preliminary characterization of ubiquitin C terminal hydrolase 1 (UCHL1) as a biomarker of neuronal loss in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. J. Neurosci. Res. 88:1475–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu MC, et al. (2010) Ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase-L1 as a biomarker for ischemic and traumatic brain injury in rats. Eur. J. Neurosci. 31:722–32.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siman R, et al. (2008) Biomarker evidence for mild central nervous system injury after surgically-induced circulation arrest. Brain Res. 1213:1–11.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Siman R, et al. (2009) A panel of neuron-enriched proteins as markers for traumatic brain injury in humans. J. Neurotrauma. 26:1867–77.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heizmann CW. (1999) Ca2+-binding S100 proteins in the central nervous system. Neurochem. Res. 24:1097–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wunderlich MT, et al. (1999) Early neurobehavioral outcome after stroke is related to release of neurobiochemical markers of brain damage. Stroke. 30:1190–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marchi N, et al. (2003) Peripheral markers of brain damage and blood-brain barrier dysfunction. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 21:109–21.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eng LF, Ghirnikar RS, Lee YL. (2000) Glial fibrillary acidic protein: GFAP-thirty-one years (1969–2000). Neurochem. Res. 25:1439–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herrmann M, et al. (2000) Neurobehavioral outcome prediction after cardiac surgery: role of neurobiochemical markers of damage to neuronal and glial brain tissue. Stroke. 31:645–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pelinka LE, et al. (2004) GFAP versus S100B in serum after traumatic brain injury: relationship to brain damage and outcome. J. Neurotrauma. 21:1553–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herrmann M, Ehrenreich H. (2003) Brain derived proteins as markers of acute stroke: their relation to pathophysiology, outcome prediction and neuroprotective drug monitoring. Restor. Neurol. Neurosci. 21:177–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannelore Ehrenreich
    • 1
  • Anne Kästner
    • 1
  • Karin Weissenborn
    • 2
  • Jackson Streeter
    • 3
  • Swetlana Sperling
    • 1
  • Kevin K. Wang
    • 3
  • Hans Worthmann
    • 2
  • Ronald L. Hayes
    • 3
  • Nico von Ahsen
    • 4
  • Andreas Kastrup
    • 5
  • Andreas Jeromin
    • 3
  • Manfred Herrmann
    • 6
  1. 1.Division of Clinical NeuroscienceMax Planck Institute of Experimental MedicineGöttingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyHannover Medical SchoolHannoverGermany
  3. 3.Banyan Biomarkers, Inc.AlachuaUSA
  4. 4.Department of Clinical ChemistryUniversity of GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  5. 5.Department of NeurologyKlinikum Bremen-Ost und Bremen-MitteBremenGermany
  6. 6.Department of Neuropsychology and Behavioral NeurobiologyUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations