Posts Tagged ‘Lipoprotein’

Lp(a) Gene Variant Association

Reporter: Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP

Lp(a) Gene Variant Associated With Aortic Stenosis

Reported by Lisa Nainggolan Feb 06, 2013; GThanassoulis et al. NEJM http://www.theheart.org/article/1503525.do

People carrying this single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) had a doubling of the risk of valve calcification on computer tomography (CT) compared with those without the variation. The same SNP has previously been identified as a risk factor for increased Lp(a) levels and coronary artery disease (CAD). Findings Could Reawaken Interest in Therapies Targeting Lp(a)

A Single Nucleotide Polymorphism is a change o...

A Single Nucleotide Polymorphism is a change of a nucleotide at a single base-pair location on DNA. Created using Inkscape v0.45.1. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Read Full Post »

Reporters: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN & Pnina G. Abir-Am, PhD

Experimenting with Lipoprotein(a)

Posted on January 9, 2013 by scarc


[Part 1 of 2]

In the late 1980s into early 1990, Linus Pauling and a colleague, Matthias Rath, worked intensively on the health benefits of Vitamin C and Lipoprotein(a) binding inhibitors. In 1990 they applied for two patents related to that research. The first, applied for in April, was titled “Use of ascorbate and tranexamic acid solution for organ and blood vessel treatment prior to transplantation.” The second, submitted in July, was titled “Prevention and treatment of occlusive cardiovascular disease with ascorbate and substances that inhibit the binding of lipoprotein (A).”

The technique that Pauling and Rath were attempting to patent in April was both a method and a pharmaceutical agent designed to prevent and treat fatty plaque buildup in arteries and organs and also prevent blood loss during surgery by introducing into a patient (or organ) a mixture of ascorbate and lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] binding inhibitors, such as tranexamic acid.

Tranexamic acid is a synthetic version of Lysine, and ascorbate is the shortened name for L-ascorbic acid, or more commonly, Vitamin C. Lp(a) is a biochemical compound of lipids and proteins which binds to fibrin and fibrogen in the walls of arteries and other organs, which causes plaque buildup, which in turn often results in atherosclerosis – the thickening and embrittling of arterial walls – and cardiovascular disease (CVD), one of the most common causes of death in the United States. The second patent described effectively the same method, but focused more on CVD and less on surgery.

Pauling and Rath noticed that humans and a select few other animals are the only creatures that suffer from heart attacks and other issues associated with the buildup of plaque in the circulatory system. One common link between all of these creatures is the fact that they do not naturally produce Vitamin C, and therefore must obtain it solely through diet. The duo hypothesized that the cause of Lp(a) buildup was due to a lack of Vitamin C, and that if Vitamin C intake was increased, it would help the body filter out Lp(a) and therefore decrease the amount of Lp(a) in the bloodstream. They decided to run tests on Hartley guinea pigs, since they are one of the few other animals that don’t synthesize their own Vitamin C.


The first test was run on three female guinea pigs, each about a year old and weighing 800 grams. The animals were all fed a diet devoid of ascorbate (e.g., a hypoascorbate diet), and given an injection daily of ascorbate so that Pauling and Rath could easily monitor and control their intake. The first pig was given ascorbate at a ratio equivalent to 1 mg per kilogram of body weight (1 mg/kg BW). The second pig was given 4 mg/kg BW, and the third was given 40 mg/kg BW.

The experiment only lasted three weeks, because Pauling and Rath didn’t want to inflict scurvy upon the guinea pigs. Creatures deprived of Vitamin C for prolonged periods develop scurvy, an incredibly painful condition where the victim becomes lethargic and begins to suffer skin color and texture changes, easy bruising, brittle and painful bones, poor wound healing, neuropathy, fever and eventually death.

The guinea pigs had their blood drawn at the start of the test, then once again after ten days. At the end of three weeks, the animals were anesthetized and euthanized, then dissected. Their results showed that the hypoascorbate guinea pigs had noticeably higher plaque buildup and general amounts of Lp(a) in their bloodstream. Upon closer analysis of the organs and the arterial wall, the researchers discovered that the guinea pigs had also developed lesions along the walls of their arteries, to which Lp(a) was binding even more than normal.

Pauling and Rath then ran a more expansive second test, with a test time of seven weeks and a test group of thirty-three male Hartley guinea pigs, each approximately five months old and weighing 550g. At the outset, the subjects were split into multiple groups. Group A consisted of eight guinea pigs and was given 40 mg/kg BW of ascorbate daily, while Group B consisted of 16 guinea pigs given 2 mg/kg BW daily. At five weeks all of Group A was euthanized and studied, as was half of Group B. The second half of Group B then had their daily dosage increased to 1.3 g/kg BW for two weeks before being euthanized.

Once again, it was observed that the hypoascorbate guinea pigs had developed lesions in their arterial walls and organs, as well as increased plaque buildup and Lp(a) levels. On the same token, the second half of Group B showed decreased levels of Lp(a) in their blood and decreased amounts of plaque after their ascorbate intake was dramatically increased.

Pauling and Rath felt that their research was confirming their hypothesis, and wanted to see how it would function on humans. Their method here was to obtain post-mortem pieces of human arterial wall. They cut the pieces into smaller sections, and for one minute placed a piece weighing 100 mg into a glass potter containing 2.5 ml of a mixture of ascorbate and tranexamic acid. Compared to the other pieces, the portions in the mixture released sizable amount of Lp(a).

This promising data in hand, Pauling and Rath then began to think about patenting and marketing their work.

Filed under: Orthomolecular MedicinePatents | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Lipoprotein(a) Patents

Posted on January 16, 2013 by scarc

Promotional literature for the Linus Pauling Heart Foundation, ca. 1992.

Promotional literature for the Linus Pauling Heart Foundation, ca. 1992.

[Part 2 of 2]

With the results of their Lipoprotein(a) [LP(a)] experiments in hand, Linus Pauling and Matthias Rath decided to create a treatment and try to patent it. Their treatment relied on three main ideas: First, that increased Vitamin C levels in the bloodstream would prevent the creation of lesions to which Lp(a) might bind. Second, that lipoprotein binding inhibitors would detach any plaque that had already built up. And lastly, that Vitamin C would then also help the body to filter out Lp(a). In this way, it could be used to both treat and prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) and other related cardiovascular problems.

The duo also saw great potential use for their research in surgery – specifically angiopathy, bypass surgery, organ transplantation, and hemodialysis. Lysine or other similar chemicals naturally help to speed the healing process and also act as blood clotting agents, therefore reducing the risk of blood loss during surgery. Also, patients undergoing organ transplant surgery, bypass surgery, and hemodialysis often suffer strong recurrences of CVD, which Pauling and Rath felt was due to depleted Vitamin C levels from blood loss. Similarly, diabetics often suffer from both inhibited Vitamin C absorption and higher levels of Lp(a), leading Pauling and Rath to hope that their work could help to treat diabetes-related CVD as well.

When living patients were using their treatment, the mixture was designed to be taken orally in pill or liquid form, or injected intravenously. Pauling also wondered if the mixture could be taken subcutaneously (injected into the deepest level of skin), percutaneously (injected into internal organs), or intramuscularly (injected into the muscle). When being used as preparation for transplant surgery, the organs to be transplanted were to be soaked in the mixture. Later research done by other scientists showed that Vitamin C is not absorbed into the bloodstream like it was thought, and that there are specific Vitamin C carrier molecules in the digestive tract, therefore limiting the amount of Vitamin C a person can absorb when taken orally. As such, injection is a much more effective method of getting Vitamin C into the bloodstream.

Pauling and Rath’s work was polarizing, if not unprecedented. As far back as the early 1970s, enthusiastic support for Vitamin C by Pauling and others had been a point of extreme controversy. Now, even with this latest batch of research, many scientists and doctors seemed to think that their conclusions were grossly incorrect, and in some cases even dangerous for people. Pauling, Rath, and their supporters felt that the harsh criticism emerged, at least in part, from pharmaceutical companies concerned about losing revenue if people stopped buying their expensive medications and instead bought inexpensive, common Vitamin C. On the flip side, many of the people who felt that their research was correct were absolutely steadfast in their support.

The controversy surprised Pauling. He repeatedly expressed these feelings, pointing out that he was not the first to make claims about the benefits of Vitamin C nor even the most extreme, and yet he was viewed as a controversial figure espousing fringe medicine. The Pauling-Rath team was not the only organization researching and promoting the positive effects of Vitamin C. Other groups, such as that led by Dr. Valentin Fuster of Harvard Medical School, were conducting similar experiments. Pauling and Rath attempted to collaborate with them where possible, often with success. But more generally the duo had to rely heavily upon individual case histories to support their research, largely because they were unable to convince major American institutions to conduct their own studies or to sponsor the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine’s studies.

Figure 1 from Pauling and Rath's July 1990 patent application.

Figure 1 from Pauling and Rath’s July 1990 patent application.

On July 27, 1993, Pauling and Rath were awarded a patent for the application filed in April 1990. On January 11, 1994, they received a second patent for the application filed in July 1990. Shortly afterward, in March 1994, the two filed a third application, following similar grounds, titled “Therapeutic Lysine Salt Composition and Method of Use.” The compound they were patenting was a mixture of ascorbate, nicotinic acid (also known as Vitamin B3 or niacin) and lysine, or a lysine derivative. The mixture was to be combined at a ratio of 4:1:1, and include a minimum of 400 mg of ascorbate, 100 mg niacin and 100 mg lysine. The mixture functioned more or less identically to the previous two patents, the major difference being the inclusion of Vitamin B3 for its antioxidant properties. Pauling and Rath also encouraged the inclusion of additional antioxidant vitamins.

This was the last patent that Pauling and Rath would file together. Shortly afterward the two experienced a falling out and Rath left LPISM.  A few months later, on August 19, 1994, Linus Pauling passed away from cancer.

The third patent application was approved and awarded to Pauling and Rath in 1997. The two hadn’t made any profit off of the previous patents to speak of, and research that followed in the later 1990s and after 2000 showed that Vitamin C appeared to have no real effect on Lp(a). The discrepancy between the Pauling-Rath trials and subsequent tests seem to be attributable to the major differences between the two test subjects – humans and guinea pigs. However, other trials have shown that large doses of Vitamin C are useful in fighting cardiovascular disease – for reasons other than Lp(a) levels – and also work to combat stroke, decrease blood pressure and provide other health benefits.

Additional studies in the wake of Pauling and Rath have also revealed the complexity of Lp(a).  The compound is today regarded to be somewhat of a mystery in terms of function, as scientists aren’t very clear on what it does in the human body. Also, “normal” levels of Lp(a) vary massively on an individual basis, a trait that seems to trend along racial lines. As a result, choosing Lp(a) as a target for medication has proven to be extremely difficult.




Other articles  on  were published on Lipoprotein(a) On Vitamin C on this Open Source Online Scientific Journal

Exploring the role of vitamin C in Cancer therapy



Special Considerations in Blood Lipoproteins, Viscosity, Assessment and Treatment



What is the role of plasma viscosity in hemostasis and vascular disease risk?



Assessing Cardiovascular Disease with Biomarkers



Artherogenesis: Predictor of CVD – the Smaller and Denser LDL Particles


Read Full Post »

Artherogenesis: Predictor of CVD – the Smaller and Denser LDL Particles

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Updated 3/5/2013

Genetic Associations with Valvular Calcification and Aortic Stenosis

N Engl J Med 2013; 368:503-512

February 7, 2013DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1109034


We determined genomewide associations with the presence of aortic-valve calcification (among 6942 participants) and mitral annular calcification (among 3795 participants), as detected by computed tomographic (CT) scanning; the study population for this analysis included persons of white European ancestry from three cohorts participating in the Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology consortium (discovery population). Findings were replicated in independent cohorts of persons with either CT-detected valvular calcification or clinical aortic stenosis.


Genetic variation in the LPA locus, mediated by Lp(a) levels, is associated with aortic-valve calcification across multiple ethnic groups and with incident clinical aortic stenosis. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others.)


N Engl J Med 2013; 368:503-512

HDL is more than an eNOS Agonist

 In addition to the modulation of NO production by signaling events that rapidly dictate the level of enzymatic activity, important control of eNOS involves changes in the abundance of the enzyme. In a clinical trial by the Karas laboratory of niacin therapy in patients with low HDL levels (nine males and two females), flow-mediated dilation of the brachial artery was improved in association with a rise in HDL of 33% over 3 months (Kuvin et al., 2002).

Am. Heart J., 144:165–172.

They also demonstrated that eNOS expression in cultured human endothelial cells is increased by HDL exposure for 24 hours. They further showed that the increase in eNOS is related to an increase in the half-life of the protein, and that this is mediated by PI3K–Akt kinase and MAPK (Ramet et al., 2003).

J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 41:2288–2297.

Thus, the same mechanisms that underlie the acute activation of eNOS by HDL appear to be operative in upregulating the expression of the enzyme.

The current understanding of the mechanism by which HDL enhances endothelial NO production is summarized in Shaul & Mineo (2004), Figure 1.

J Clin Invest., 15; 113(4): 509–513.

It describes the mechanism of action for HDL enhancement of NO production by eNOS in vascular endothelium.

(a)   HDL causes membrane-initiated signaling, which stimulates eNOS activity. The eNOS protein is localized in cholesterol-enriched (orange circles) plasma membrane caveolae as a result of the myristoylation and palmitoylation of the protein. Binding of HDL to SR-BI via apoAI causes rapid activation of the nonreceptor tyrosine kinase src, leading to PI3K activation and downstream activation of Akt kinase and MAPK. Akt enhances eNOS activity by phosphorylation, and independent MAPK-mediated processes are additionally required (Duarte, et al., 1997). Eur J Pharmacol, 338:25–33.

HDL also causes an increase in intracellular Ca2+ concentration (intracellular Ca2+ store shown in blue; Ca2+ channel shown in pink), which enhances binding of calmodulin (CM) to eNOS. HDL-induced signaling is mediated at least partially by the HDL-associated lysophospholipids SPC, S1P, and LSF acting through the G protein–coupled lysophospholipid receptor S1P3. HDL-associated estradiol (E2) may also activate signaling by binding to plasma membrane–associated estrogen receptors (ERs), which are also G protein coupled. It remains to be determined if signaling events are also directly mediated by SR-BI (Yuhanna et al., 2001), (Nofer et al., 2004), (Gong et al., 2003), (Mineo et al., 2003).

Nat. Med., 7:853–857.

J. Clin. Invest.,113:569–581.

J. Clin. Invest., 111:1579–1587.

J. Biol. Chem., 278:9142–9149.

(b)   HDL regulates eNOS abundance and subcellular distribution. In addition to modulating the acute response, the activation of the PI3K–Akt kinase pathway and MAPK by HDL upregulates eNOS expression (open arrows). HDL also regulates the lipid environment in caveolae (dashed arrows). Oxidized LDL (OxLDL) can serve as a cholesterol acceptor (orange circles), thereby disrupting caveolae and eNOS function. However, in the presence of OxLDL, HDL maintains the total cholesterol content of caveolae by the provision of cholesterol ester (blue circles), resulting in preservation of the eNOS signaling module (Ramet et al., 2003), (Blair et al., 1999), (Uittenbogaard et al., 2000).

J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 41:2288–2297.

J. Biol. Chem., 274:32512–32519.

J. Biol. Chem., 275:11278–11283.


Shaul, PW and Mineo, C, (2004). HDL action on the vascular wall: is the answer NO? J Clin Invest., 15; 113(4): 509–513.

Are Additional Lipid Measures Useful?

Ryan D. Bradley, ND; and Erica B. Oberg, ND, MPH


Total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) are the well-established standards by which clinicians identify individuals at risk for coronary artery disease (CAD), yet nearly 50% of people who have a myocardial infarction have normal cholesterol levels. Measurement of additional biomarkers may be useful to more fully stratify patients according to disease risk. The typical lipid panel includes TC, LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol  (HDL-C), and triglycerides (TGs). Emerging biomarkers for cardiovascular risk include measures of LDL-C pattern, size,  and density; LDL particle number; lipoprotein(a); apolipoproteins  (apoA1 and apoB100 being the most useful);  C-reactive protein; and lipoprotein-associated phospholipase

Some of these emerging biomarkers have been proven to add to, or be more accurate than, traditional risk factors in predicting coronary artery disease and, thus, may be useful for clinical decision-making in high-risk patients and in patients with borderline traditional risk factors.  However, we still believe that until treatment strategies can uniquely address these added risk factors—ie, until protocols to rectify unhealthy findings are shown to improve cardiovascular outcomes—healthcare providers should continue to focus primarily on helping patients reach optimal LDL-C, HDL-C, and TG levels

Table 1. Traditional Lipid Panel and Recommended Treatment

Goals for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention34

  • Total Cholesterol Desirable (low) < 200 mg/dL
  • Borderline high 200-239 mg/dL
  • High 240 mg/dL or greater
  • HDL Cholesterol Desirable (high) > 60 mg/dL
  • Acceptable 40-60 mg/dL
  • Low < 40 mg/dL
  • LDL Cholesterol Desirable (low) < 100 mg/dL
  • Acceptable 100-129 mg/dL
  • Borderline high 130-159 mg/dL
  • High 160-189 mg/dL
  • Very high 190 mg/dL or greater
  • Triglycerides Desirable (low) < 150 mg/dL
  • Borderline high 150-199 mg/dL
  • High 200-499 mg/dL
  • Very high 500 mg/dL or greater

LDL-C and HDL-C: Pattern, Size, and Density

Two patterns predominate and are used to describe the average size of LDL particles. Pattern A refers to a preponderance of large LDL particles, while Pattern B refers to a preponderance of small LDL particles; a minority of individuals displays an intermediate or mixed pattern. Some commercially available assays further subdivide LDL-C into 7 distinct designations based on particle size.9,10

LDL Lipoprotein Particle Number

LDL particle number (LDL-P) is a measure of the number of lipoprotein particles independent of the quantity of lipid within the cholesterol particle; ie, LDL-P measures the number of individual particles, not a concentration like LDL-C. It is measured using nuclear magnetic resonance technology and is unaffected by fasting status.21 Higher LDL-P measures have been associated with a higher risk of CAD. This might simply be because there are more particles susceptible to oxidation in circulation.

There are suggestions, but not definitive proof, that reducing LDL-P increases intra-LDL antioxidant capacity.  The European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk cohort, a study that has followed 25 663 participants  (men and women aged 45-79 years) over 6 years, evaluated associations between LDL-P and risk of CAD. Compared to controls,  cases of CAD had a higher number of LDL particles (LDL-P P<.0001), smaller average LDL-particle size (P=.002), and higher concentrations of small LDL particles (P<.0001).22

Once again,  small, dense LDL-C were positively associated with TG and negatively associated with HDL.  In another study investigating incident angina and MI with LDL-P, females, but not males, had a significantly increased odds ratio for incident MI and angina for higher LDL-P—but not for LDL size—after adjustment for LDL, age, and race.  Males had increased (but not significant) point estimates showing the same relationship.23 Of note, LDL-P and non-HDL-C (ie,  TC minus HDL-C, or, specifically, LDL-C plus VLDLs), added equivalently to Framingham-predicted CAD risk stratification, thus reducing our enthusiasm for this additional measurement when TC and HDL-C are routinely available.22 Based on these results, LDL-P is becoming recognized as a more-precise measure of LDL-related risk and, as it becomes more available, is likely to replace LDL-C in risk-stratification tools. Clinical availability is currently limited; however, Medicare recently began reimbursing for regular testing of LDL-P in highrisk patients, so we should see availability increase soon. There are no novel treatments based on LDL-P at this time, and data shows therapies that lower LDL-C lower LDL-P as well.


Apolipoproteins are the protein components of plasma lipoproteins. Several different apolipoproteins have been identified and numbered; however, apoB48, apoB100, and apoA are the most commonly referenced.  ApoB48 is associated with LDL particles that transport dietary cholesterol to the liver for processing. ApoB100 is found in lipoproteins originating from the liver (eg, LDL and VLDL); it transports these lipoproteins and, also, TGs to the periphery. In addition, ApoB100 is involved with the binding of LDL particles to the vascular wall, implicating itself as a key player in the development of atherogenic plaques. Importantly, there is one apoB100 molecule per hepatic-derived lipoprotein. Hence, it is possible to quantify the number of LDL/VLDL particles by noting the total apoB100 concentration.

Measurement of apoB100 has been shown in nearly all studies to outperform LDL-C and non-HDL-C as a predictor of CAD events and as an index of residual CAD risk, perhaps due to differences in measurement sensitivity between measurement methodologies. Direct measurement of apolipoproteins is superior to calculated lipid measurements. Yet, currently, apoB100 measurement is more costly than routine measurements and,  because apoB100 is so closely associated with non-HDL-C (which,  as mentioned previously, can be estimated by TC minus HDL-C),  our enthusiasm for the clinical use of this test is limited.24 For its part, apoA is associated with HDL particles; the 2 major proteins in HDL are apoAI and apoAII. Of these, apoAI has more frequently been used to estimate HDL-C, but, in contrast to apoB100, apoAI is not unique to HDL and so the ratio of apoAI to HDL is not 1 to 1.24


Lipoprotein(a)—Lp(a)—is attached to apoB. The association of Lp(a) with CAD and its ability to act as a biomarker of risk appears to be strongest in patients with hypercholesterolemia and, in particular, in young patients with premature atherosclerosis (males younger than 55 and females younger than 65). Part of the reason for this is the observation that there seem to be important threshold effects such that only very high Lp(a) levels (> 30 mg/dL) are associated with elevated vascular risk; in this regard, these increased plasma levels of Lp(a) independently predict the presence of CAD, particularly in patients with elevated LDL-C levels.28

In the Cardiovascular Health Study, a relative risk of approximately 3-fold for death from vascular events and stroke was seen in the highest quintile compared to the lowest quintile of Lp(a) but for males only, whereas no such relation existed for women.29 Lp(a) is commonly considered a marker for familial hypercholesterolemia. Lp(a) may best be used in assessing the risk of younger males with strong family histories of CVD but  should not be used more generally.

Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease

(Exclusive of LDL Cholesterol)34

  • Cigarette smoking
  • Hypertension (BP > 140/90 mmHg or on antihypertensive medication)
  • Low HDL cholesterol (< 40 mg/dL)
  • Family history of premature CHD (CHD in first-degree male relative <
  • 55 years; CHD in first-degree female relative < 65 years)
  • Age (men > 44 years; women > 54 years

In addition,

  • Clinical coronary heart disease,
  • symptomatic carotid artery disease,
  • peripheral arterial disease, or
  • abdominal aortic aneurysm


In the United States, treatment guidelines for high CVD risk factors are set by the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel, which developed the third report of the Adult Treatment Panel (ATPIII).34 Treatment goals are determined according to risk stratification by LDL-C and by known additional risk factors such as smoking, low HDL, hypertension,  family history, and age. Yet, clinically, decision-making is always more complex than this. Additional risk stratification can be accomplished by measuring the biomarkers discussed above, and this may potentially provide additive benefit beyond NCEP guidelines. However, we always encourage clinicians to treat known risks to goal levels before adding additional goals for treatment. In a future article we will provide further detail on treatment options for novel biomarkers.


1. No authors listed. Cardiovascular disease statistics. American Heart Association.

Available at: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4478.

Accessed October 28, 2008.

2. Tsimikas S, Willerson JT, Ridker PM. C-reactive protein and other emerging blood

biomarkers to optimize risk stratification of vulnerable patients. J Am Coll Cardiol.

2006;47(8 Suppl):C19-C31.

3. Nicholls SJ, Tuzcu EM, Sipahi I, et al. Statins, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol,

and regression of coronary atherosclerosis. JAMA. 2007;297(5):499-508.

4. Hausenloy DJ, Yellon DM. Targeting residual cardiovascular risk: raising high-density

lipoprotein cholesterol levels. JAMA. 2007;297(5):499-508.

5. Bansal S, Buring JE, Rifai N, Mora S, Sacks FM, Ridker PM. Fasting compared with

nonfasting triglycerides and risk of cardiovascular events in women. JAMA.


6. Nordestgaard BG, Benn M, Schnohr P, Tybjaerg-Hansen A. Nonfasting triglycerides

and risk of myocardial infarction, ischemic heart disease, and death in men and

women. JAMA. 2007;298(3):299-308.

7. Stampfer MJ, Krauss RM, Ma J, et al. A prospective study of triglyceride level, lowdensity

lipoprotein particle diameter, and risk of myocardial infarction. JAMA.


8. Ceriello A. The post-prandial state and cardiovascular disease: relevance to diabetes

mellitus. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2000;16(2):125-132.

9. Carmena R, Duriez P, Fruchart JC. Atherogenic lipoprotein particles in artherosclerosis.

Circulation. 2004;109(23 Suppl 1):III2-III7.

10. Dormans TP, Swinkels DW, de Graaf J, Hendriks JC, Stalenhoef AF, Demacker PN.

Single-spin density-gradient ultracentrifugation vs gradient gel electrophoresis: two

methods for detecting low-density-lipoprotein heterogeneity compared. Clin Chem.


11. Roheim PS, Asztalos BF. Clinical significance of lipoprotein size and risk for coronary

atherosclerosis. Clin Chem. 1995;41(1):147-152.

12. Swinkels DW, Demacker PN, Hendriks JC, van ‘t Laar A. Low density lipoprotein

subfractions and relationship to other risk factors for coronary artery disease in

healthy individuals. Arteriosclerosis. 1989;9(5):604-613.

13. Tan CE, Chew LS, Chio LF, et al. Cardiovascular risk factors and LDL subfraction

profile in Type 2 diabetes mellitus subjects with good glycaemic control. Diabetes Res

Clin Pract. 2001;51(2):107-114.

14. Lamarche B, Tchernof A, Mauriège P, et al. Fasting insulin and apolipoprotein B levels

and low-density lipoprotein particle size as risk factors for ischemic heart disease.

JAMA. 1998;279(24):1955-1961.

15. St-Pierre AC, Ruel IL, Cantin B, et al. Comparison of various electrophoretic characteristics

of LDL particles and their relationship to the risk of ischemic heart disease.

Circulation. 2001;104(19):2295-2299.

16. Mora S, Szklo M, Otvos JD, et al. LDL particle subclasses, LDL particle size, and

carotid atherosclerosis in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA).

Atherosclerosis. 2007;192(1):211-217.

17. Singh IM, Shishehbor MH, Ansell BJ. High-density lipoprotein as a therapeutic target:

a systematic review. JAMA. 2007;298(7):786-798.

18. Lewis GF. Determinants of plasma HDL concentrations and reverse cholesterol

transport. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2006;21(4):345-352.

19. Kontush A, de Faria EC, Chantepie S, Chapman MJ. A normotriglyceridemic, low

HDL-cholesterol phenotype is characterised by elevated oxidative stress and HDL

particles with attenuated antioxidative activity. Atherosclerosis. 2005;182(2):277-285.

20. Nobécourt E, Jacqueminet S, Hansel B, et al. Defective antioxidative activity of small

dense HDL3 particles in type 2 diabetes: relationship to elevated oxidative stress and

hyperglycaemia. Diabetologia. 2005;48(3):529-538.

21. Dungan KM, Guster T, DeWalt DA, Buse JB. A comparison of lipid and lipoprotein

measurements in the fasting and nonfasting states in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(11):2689-2695.

22. El Harchaoui K, van der Steeg WA, Stroes ES, et al. Value of low-density lipoprotein

particle number and size as predictors of coronary artery disease in apparently

healthy men and women: the EPIC-Norfolk Prospective Population Study. J Am Coll

Cardiol. 2007;49(5):547-553.

23. Kuller L, Arnold A, Tracy R, et al. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of lipoproteins

and risk of coronary heart disease in the cardiovascular health study.

Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2002;22(7):1175-1180.

24. Olofsson SO, Wiklund O, Borén J. Apolipoproteins A-I and B: biosynthesis, role in

the development of atherosclerosis and targets for intervention against cardiovascular

disease. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2007;3(4):491-502.

25. Walldius G, Jungner I. Is there a better marker of cardiovascular risk than LDL cholesterol?

Apolipoproteins B and A-I—new risk factors and targets for therapy. Nutr

Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2007;17(8):565-571.

26. Anand SS, Islam S, Rosengren A, et al. Risk factors for myocardial infarction in

women and men: insights from the INTERHEART study. Eur Heart J.


27. McQueen MJ, Hawken S, Wang X, et al. Lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins as

risk markers of myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): a

case-control study. Lancet. 2008;372(9634):224-233.

28. Danesh J, Collins R, Peto R. Lipoprotein(a) and coronary heart disease. Metaanalysis

of prospective studies. Circulation. 2000;102(10):1082-1085.

29. Ariyo AA, Thach C, Tracy R; Cardiovascular Health Study Investigators. Lp(a) lipoprotein,

vascular disease, and mortality in the elderly. N Engl J Med.


30. Retterstol L, Eikvar L, Bohn M, Bakken A, Erikssen J, Berg K. C-reactive protein predicts

death in patients with previous premature myocardial infarction—a 10 year

follow-up study. Atherosclerosis. 2002;160(2):433-440.

31. Kiechl S, Willeit J, Mayr M, et al. Oxidized phospholipids, lipoprotein(a), lipoprotein-

associated phospholipase A2 activity, and 10-year cardiovascular outcomes:

prospective results from the Bruneck study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol.


32. Kolko M, Rodriguez de Turco EB, Diemer NH, Bazan NG. Neuronal damage by

secretory phospholipase A2: modulation by cytosolic phospholipase A2, plateletactivating

factor, and cyclooxygenase-2 in neuronal cells in culture. Neurosci Lett.


33. Robins SJ, Collins D, Nelson JJ, Bloomfield HE, Asztalos BF. Cardiovascular events

with increased lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2) and low high-density lipoprotein-

cholesterol: the Veterans Affairs HDL Intervention Trial. Arterioscler Thromb

Vasc Biol. 2008;28(6):1172-1178.

34. Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in

Adults. Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol

Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment

of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA.


Other related articles on this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

Fight against Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Biologics not a Small Molecule – Recombinant Human lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase (rhLCAT) attracted AstraZeneca to acquire AlphaCore

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN


Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein (CETP) Inhibitor: Potential of Anacetrapib to treat Atherosclerosis and CAD

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN


Hypertriglyceridemia concurrent Hyperlipidemia: Vertical Density Gradient Ultracentrifugation a Better Test to Prevent Undertreatment of High-Risk Cardiac Patients

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN


High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL): An Independent Predictor of Endothelial Function & Atherosclerosis, A Modulator, An Agonist, A Biomarker for Cardiovascular Risk

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN



Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: