The prediction of early preeclampsia: Results from a longitudinal proteomics study.
Journal: 2019/June - PLoS ONE
ISSN: 1932-6203
Abstract:
To identify maternal plasma protein markers for early preeclampsia (delivery <34 weeks of gestation) and to determine whether the prediction performance is affected by disease severity and presence of placental lesions consistent with maternal vascular malperfusion (MVM) among cases.This longitudinal case-control study included 90 patients with a normal pregnancy and 33 patients with early preeclampsia. Two to six maternal plasma samples were collected throughout gestation from each woman. The abundance of 1,125 proteins was measured using high-affinity aptamer-based proteomic assays, and data were modeled using linear mixed-effects models. After data transformation into multiples of the mean values for gestational age, parsimonious linear discriminant analysis risk models were fit for each gestational-age interval (8-16, 16.1-22, 22.1-28, 28.1-32 weeks). Proteomic profiles of early preeclampsia cases were also compared to those of a combined set of controls and late preeclampsia cases (n = 76) reported previously. Prediction performance was estimated via bootstrap.We found that 1) multi-protein models at 16.1-22 weeks of gestation predicted early preeclampsia with a sensitivity of 71% at a false-positive rate (FPR) of 10%. High abundance of matrix metalloproteinase-7 and glycoprotein IIbIIIa complex were the most reliable predictors at this gestational age; 2) at 22.1-28 weeks of gestation, lower abundance of placental growth factor (PlGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor A, isoform 121 (VEGF-121), as well as elevated sialic acid binding immunoglobulin-like lectin 6 (siglec-6) and activin-A, were the best predictors of the subsequent development of early preeclampsia (81% sensitivity, FPR = 10%); 3) at 28.1-32 weeks of gestation, the sensitivity of multi-protein models was 85% (FPR = 10%) with the best predictors being activated leukocyte cell adhesion molecule, siglec-6, and VEGF-121; 4) the increase in siglec-6, activin-A, and VEGF-121 at 22.1-28 weeks of gestation differentiated women who subsequently developed early preeclampsia from those who had a normal pregnancy or developed late preeclampsia (sensitivity 77%, FPR = 10%); 5) the sensitivity of risk models was higher for early preeclampsia with placental MVM lesions than for the entire early preeclampsia group (90% versus 71% at 16.1-22 weeks; 87% versus 81% at 22.1-28 weeks; and 90% versus 85% at 28.1-32 weeks, all FPR = 10%); and 6) the sensitivity of prediction models was higher for severe early preeclampsia than for the entire early preeclampsia group (84% versus 71% at 16.1-22 weeks).We have presented herein a catalogue of proteome changes in maternal plasma proteome that precede the diagnosis of preeclampsia and can distinguish among early and late phenotypes. The sensitivity of maternal plasma protein models for early preeclampsia is higher in women with underlying vascular placental disease and in those with a severe phenotype.
Relations:
Content
Citations
(6)
References
(254)
Conditions
(1)
Chemicals
(3)
Genes
(9)
Processes
(5)
Anatomy
(1)
Affiliates
(2)
Similar articles
Articles by the same authors
Discussion board
PLoS ONE. Dec/31/2018; 14(6)
Published online Jun/3/2019

The prediction of early preeclampsia: Results from a longitudinal proteomics study

+6 authors

Abstract

Objectives

To identify maternal plasma protein markers for early preeclampsia (delivery <34 weeks of gestation) and to determine whether the prediction performance is affected by disease severity and presence of placental lesions consistent with maternal vascular malperfusion (MVM) among cases.

Study design

This longitudinal case-control study included 90 patients with a normal pregnancy and 33 patients with early preeclampsia. Two to six maternal plasma samples were collected throughout gestation from each woman. The abundance of 1,125 proteins was measured using high-affinity aptamer-based proteomic assays, and data were modeled using linear mixed-effects models. After data transformation into multiples of the mean values for gestational age, parsimonious linear discriminant analysis risk models were fit for each gestational-age interval (8–16, 16.1–22, 22.1–28, 28.1–32 weeks). Proteomic profiles of early preeclampsia cases were also compared to those of a combined set of controls and late preeclampsia cases (n = 76) reported previously. Prediction performance was estimated via bootstrap.

Results

We found that 1) multi-protein models at 16.1–22 weeks of gestation predicted early preeclampsia with a sensitivity of 71% at a false-positive rate (FPR) of 10%. High abundance of matrix metalloproteinase-7 and glycoprotein IIbIIIa complex were the most reliable predictors at this gestational age; 2) at 22.1–28 weeks of gestation, lower abundance of placental growth factor (PlGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor A, isoform 121 (VEGF-121), as well as elevated sialic acid binding immunoglobulin-like lectin 6 (siglec-6) and activin-A, were the best predictors of the subsequent development of early preeclampsia (81% sensitivity, FPR = 10%); 3) at 28.1–32 weeks of gestation, the sensitivity of multi-protein models was 85% (FPR = 10%) with the best predictors being activated leukocyte cell adhesion molecule, siglec-6, and VEGF-121; 4) the increase in siglec-6, activin-A, and VEGF-121 at 22.1–28 weeks of gestation differentiated women who subsequently developed early preeclampsia from those who had a normal pregnancy or developed late preeclampsia (sensitivity 77%, FPR = 10%); 5) the sensitivity of risk models was higher for early preeclampsia with placental MVM lesions than for the entire early preeclampsia group (90% versus 71% at 16.1–22 weeks; 87% versus 81% at 22.1–28 weeks; and 90% versus 85% at 28.1–32 weeks, all FPR = 10%); and 6) the sensitivity of prediction models was higher for severe early preeclampsia than for the entire early preeclampsia group (84% versus 71% at 16.1–22 weeks).

Conclusion

We have presented herein a catalogue of proteome changes in maternal plasma proteome that precede the diagnosis of preeclampsia and can distinguish among early and late phenotypes. The sensitivity of maternal plasma protein models for early preeclampsia is higher in women with underlying vascular placental disease and in those with a severe phenotype.

Introduction

Preeclampsia is a major obstetrical syndrome [13], classified according to the time of its clinical manifestation as “early preeclampsia” if it occurs prior to 34 weeks of gestation and, otherwise, as “late preeclampsia” [410]. The 34-week cut-off is most commonly used [9,11,12] given the substantial decline in maternal [6,1317] and neonatal [8,13,1824] morbidity compared to later gestational ages.

Early preeclampsia accounts for approximately 10% of the cases [8], and its pathophysiology involves both maternal predisposing factors and disorders of deep placentation [25,26]. Indeed, in early preeclampsia, the frequency of placental vascular lesions consistent with maternal vascular malperfusion (MVM) is higher than in late preeclampsia [2730], suggesting that the underlying pathological processes leading to this phenotype begin in the early stages of gestation and involve an angiogenic imbalance [11,3137]. This finding has clinical implications given that patients identified to be at risk by the end of the first trimester can benefit from treatment [3841].

Current prediction models for preeclampsia combine maternal risk factors, Doppler velocimetry of the uterine arteries, and maternal blood proteins [32,37,4246]. Although the detection rate of these models [12,4750] for the identification of patients at risk for early/preterm preeclampsia is sufficient to enable preventive strategies [40], the contribution of biochemical markers in these models is limited. Moreover, Doppler velocimetry required in the current screening models [47,5157] to compensate for the sub-optimal prediction by biochemical markers may not be available in all clinical settings.

Therefore, we used a novel high-affinity aptamer-based proteomic platform to identify longitudinal changes in maternal plasma proteins that have the potential to improve prediction of early preeclampsia and to distinguish between the early and late phenotypes. We also investigated whether the predictive performance of protein markers is impacted by disease severity and the presence of placental lesions consistent with MVM among cases.

Materials and methods

Study design

A nested case-control study was conducted, including patients diagnosed with early preeclampsia (cases, n = 33) and those with a normal pregnancy (controls, n = 90). Women were enrolled as participants of a longitudinal cohort study conducted at the Center for Advanced Obstetrical Care and Research of the Perinatology Research Branch, NICHD/NIH/DHHS, the Detroit Medical Center, and Wayne State University. Women with a multiple gestation, severe chronic maternal morbidity (i.e., renal insufficiency, congestive heart disease, and/or chronic respiratory insufficiency), acute maternal morbidity (i.e., asthma exacerbation requiring systemic steroids and/or active hepatitis), or fetal chromosomal abnormalities and congenital anomalies were excluded from the study.

Plasma samples were collected at the time of each prenatal visit scheduled at four-week intervals from the first or early second trimester until delivery. All patients provided written informed consent prior to sample collection. The plasma proteome of each patient was profiled in two to six samples collected from each patient and included, for some of the cases, the sample collected after the diagnosis of early preeclampsia. Although data collected after diagnosis are displayed in longitudinal plots, all analyses reported herein were based only on samples collected prior to the diagnosis [median (interquartile range or IQR) of 3 (2–4) for cases and 2 (2–5) for controls].

The analysis presented in this manuscript is based on data and specimens collected under the protocol entitled “Biological Markers of Disease in the Prediction of Preterm Delivery, Preeclampsia and Intra-Uterine Growth Restriction: A Longitudinal Study.” The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Wayne State University (WSU IRB#110605MP2F) and NICHD/NIH/DHHS (OH97-CH-N067).

Clinical definitions

Preeclampsia was defined as new-onset hypertension that developed after 20 weeks of gestation (systolic or diastolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg and/or ≥90 mm Hg, respectively, measured on at least two occasions, 4 hours to 1 week apart) and proteinuria (≥300 mg in a 24-hour urine collection, or two random urine specimens obtained 4 hours to 1 week apart containing ≥1+ by dipstick or one dipstick demonstrating ≥2+ protein) [58].

Early preeclampsia was defined as preeclampsia diagnosed and delivered before 34 weeks of gestation, and late preeclampsia was defined as preeclampsia delivered at or after 34 weeks of gestation [4]. Severe preeclampsia was diagnosed as preeclampsia with systolic blood pressure ≥ 160 mmHg, or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 110 mmHg, platelet count < 100,000 per mm3, elevated liver enzymes, renal insufficiency, pulmonary edema or cyanosis, new-onset cerebral/visual disturbances, and/or right upper quadrant or epigastric pain [9,59].

Histologic placental examination

Placentas were examined according to standardized protocols by perinatal pathologists blinded to clinical diagnoses and obstetrical outcomes, as previously described [60]. Placental lesions were diagnosed using criteria established by the Perinatal Section of the Society for Pediatric Pathology [61] and the terminology was updated to be consistent with that recommended by the Amsterdam Placental Workshop Group consensus statement [62]. The definitions of lesions consistent with MVM were previously described [63].

Proteomics analysis

Maternal plasma protein abundance was determined by using the SOMAmer (Slow Off-rate Modified Aptamer) platform and reagents to profile 1,125 proteins [64,65]. Proteomics profiling services were provided by Somalogic, Inc. (Boulder, CO, USA). The plasma samples were diluted and then incubated with the respective SOMAmer mixes, and after following a suite of steps described elsewhere [64,65], the signal from the SOMAmer reagents was measured using microarrays.

Statistical analysis

Demographics data analysis

Clinical characteristics of the patient population were summarized as median and IQRs for continuous variables or as percentages for categorical variables. The comparison of demographic variables between the groups was performed using the Fisher’s exact test for binary variables and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables.

Proteomic data transformation

The raw protein abundance data consisted of relative fluorescence units obtained from scanning the microarrays with a laser scanner. A sample-by-sample adjustment in the overall signal within a single plate (85 samples processed per plate/run) was performed in three steps: Hybridization Control Normalization, Median Signal Normalization, and Calibration, using the manufacturer’s protocol. Outlier values (larger than 2×the 98th percentile of all samples) were set to 2×the 98th percentile of all samples (data thresholding). Protein abundance was then log2 transformed to improve normality. Linear mixed-effects models with cubic splines (number of knots = 3) were used to model protein abundance in the control group as a function of gestational age using the lme4 package [66] under the R statistical language and environment (www.r-project.org). Data for all samples were then expressed as multiple of the mean (MoM) values for the corresponding gestational age in the normal pregnancy group. Longitudinal protein abundance averages and confidence intervals in sub-groups (MVM vs non-MVM, and severe vs mild preeclampsia) were estimated using generalized additive mixed models implemented in the mgcv package and illustrated using ggplot2 package in R.

Development of multi-marker prediction models

To develop proteomics prediction models based on protein abundance collected in each gestational-age interval (8–16, 16.1–22, 22.1–28, 28.1–32, 32.1–36 weeks) and, at the same time, to obtain unbiased prediction performance estimates on the available dataset, we implemented advances in predictive modeling with omics data [6769]. Log2 MoM values for one protein at a time were used to fit a linear discriminant analysis (LDA) model and to compute by leave-one-out cross-validation, a classification performance measure for each protein. With leave-one-out cross-validation, data from one patient at a time is left out when fitting the LDA model, and then the fitted model is applied to the data of the subject left out. The resulting predictions were combined over all patients to calculate prediction performance. The performance measure considered was the partial area under the curve (pAUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (false-positive rate [FPR] <50%). Proteins that failed to reach at least a 10% change in the average MoM value between the study groups were filtered out from the analysis. Next, LDA models were fit by using increasing sets of up to five of the top proteins ranked by the pAUC. To enforce model parsimony, the inclusion of each additional protein was conditioned on the increase of 0.01 units in the pAUC statistic.

To obtain an unbiased estimate of the prediction performance of multi-marker models, we used bootstrap (200 iterations). Each iteration involved the following steps: 1) draw a random sample with the replacement of 33 cases and 90 controls to create a training set and consider all patients not selected in the bootstrap sample as a test set; 2) apply all analytical steps involved in the prediction model development described above (including the selection of predictor proteins) for each gestational-age interval using the training set; 3) apply the resulting prediction model and determine its prediction performance on data from patients in the test set. The average performance over 200 test sets was reported as a robust estimate of the prediction performance. Alternatively, instead of creating training and test partitions via bootstrap, repeated (n = 67 times) 3-fold cross-validation was used to generate 201 training and test set pairs, while keeping all other parameters of the analysis the same as described above for bootstrap.

Differential abundance analysis

The classifier development pipeline described above identifies a parsimonious set of proteins that predict early preeclampsia, yet it will not necessarily retain all proteins showing evidence of differential abundance between groups. Therefore, a complementary analysis was performed to identify all proteins with significant differences in mean log2 MoM values between the cases and controls at each gestational-age interval. Linear models with coefficient significance evaluated via moderated t-tests were applied using the limma package [70] of Bioconductor [71]. Significance was inferred based on the FDR-adjusted p-value (q-value) <0.1 after adjusting for body mass index, smoking status, maternal age, and parity.

Both prediction model development and differential abundance analyses described above were also applied, including only controls and early preeclampsia cases i) with placental MVM lesions and ii) those with a severe phenotype.

Comparison between the proteomic profiles of early and late preeclampsia

To identify protein changes specific to early onset, but not late onset, of the disease, data from the early preeclampsia (n = 33) group were compared to a combined group that included both late preeclampsia cases (N = 76) [72] and normal pregnancies (n = 90).

Gene ontology and pathway analysis

Proteins were mapped to Entrez gene identifiers [73] based on Somalogic, Inc. annotation and, subsequently, to gene ontology [74]. Biological processes over-represented among the proteins that changed with early preeclampsia were identified using a Fisher’s exact test. Gene ontology terms with three or more hits and a q-value < 0.1 were considered significantly enriched. Identification of signaling pathways from the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway database [75] that were enriched in proteins with differential abundance was performed using a pathway impact analysis method previously described [76,77]. The analysis was conducted using the web-based implementation available in iPathwayGuide (http://www.advaitabio.com). All enrichment analyses used, as reference, the set of all 1,125 proteins that were profiled on the Somalogic platform.

Results

In the early preeclampsia group, 33% (11/33) of the women delivered a small-for-gestational-age neonate, 73% (24/33) had placental lesions consistent with MVM and 70% (23/33) were severe cases. Cases were diagnosed from 24.6 to 33.4 weeks of gestation. Other characteristics of the study population classified by outcome and presence of placental MVM lesions are shown in Table 1.

10.1371/journal.pone.0217273.t001Table 1
Demographic characteristics of the study population.
CharacteristicNormal pregnancy (n = 90)Early PE (n = 33)
With MVM (n = 24) Without MVM (n = 9)
With MVM (n = 24)With MVM (n = 24) Without MVM (n = 9)
Gestational age at enrolment (weeks)9.1 (8.0–10.1)10.4 (8.3–15.2) [p = 0.024]13.1 (8.4–14.6)
[p = 0.042]
Gestational age at delivery (weeks)39.4 (39.0–40.4)31.2 (28.3–33.0) [p<0.001]33.4 (32.1–33.6) [p<0.001]
Body mass index (kg/m2)26.5 (22.8–33.2)26.3 (20.5–30.6) [p = 0.27]28.2 (22.3–32.9) [p = 0.62]
Maternal age (years)24 (21.0–27.8)22 (19.0–25.5) [p = 0.05]24 (22.0–30.0) [p = 0.88]
Smoking status18 (20%)5 (20.83%) [p = 1]5 (55.56%) [p = 0.03]
Nulliparity26 (28.9%)15 (62.5%) [p = 0.004]1 (11.11%) [p = 0.44]
Data are presented as median (interquartile range) or number (percentage); P-values are given for the comparison to the normal pregnancy group. Early PE: early preeclampsia; MVM: maternal vascular malperfusion.

Proteomic prediction models for early preeclampsia by gestational age at blood draw

The prediction performance indices of the multi-marker models involving up to five proteins were estimated by bootstrap and are illustrated in Fig 1and Table 2. Fig 1presents the sensitivity (10% FPR) of multi-marker models for early preeclampsia at each gestational-age interval.

10.1371/journal.pone.0217273.g001Fig 1

Sensitivity for early preeclampsia using multi-protein markers.

Sensitivity (y-axis) at a 10% FPR are shown by gestational-age interval (x-axis) for early preeclampsia (PE), early PE with placental lesions consistent with MVM, and severe early PE. The vertical bars represent the average (with 95% confidence intervals) of sensitivity obtained from 200 bootstrap iterations. Early PE: early preeclampsia; FPR: false-positive rate; MVM: maternal vascular malperfusion.

10.1371/journal.pone.0217273.t002Table 2
Summary of bootstrap results for prediction of early preeclampsia vs normal pregnancy.
OutcomeSample GAAUCSensitivitySpecificityPredictor Symbols (% inclusion in best combination)
(weeks)
8–160.640.310.90MMP-7(42%), gpIIbIIIa(23%), HMG-1(10%), vWF(10%)
All16.1–220.880.710.90MMP-7(90%), gpIIbIIIa(18%), Soggy-1(10%),
Early PE22.1–280.900.810.90Siglec-6(58%), PlGF(52%), Activin A(25%), VEGF121(18%)
28.1–320.940.850.90ALCAM(38%), VEGF121(32%), Siglec-6(32%)
8–160.630.320.90MMP-7(33%), gpIIbIIIa(26%), ACE2(18%)
Early PE16.1–220.960.900.90MMP-7(99%),
MVM22.1–280.950.870.92Siglec-6(76%), PlGF(21%), Activin A(14%)
28.1–320.950.900.90Siglec-6(63%), VEGF121(33%), ALCAM(10%)
8–160.670.350.90MMP-7(44%); gpIIbIIIa(17%); Glutathione S-transferase Pi(12%); SMAC(10%); C4b(10%)
Early PE16.1–220.940.840.90MMP-7(97%); gpIIbIIIa(14%)
Severe22.1–280.890.810.91Siglec-6(68%); PlGF(34%); VEGF121(24%); Activin A(14%)
28.1–320.950.880.90Siglec-6(52%); VEGF121(26%); ALCAM(22%)
The number in parentheses following the name of each protein (column Predictor Symbols) represents the percentage of bootstrap iterations in which the protein was selected in the best model. Only proteins selected in 10% or more of the 200 bootstrap iterations are listed. ACE2: angiotensin converting enzyme 2; ALCAM: activated leukocyte cell adhesion molecule; AUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; GA: gestational age; gpIIbIIIa: glycoprotein IIb/IIIa; HMG-1: high-mobility group protein 1; MMP: matrix metalloproteinase; early PE: early preeclampsia; MVM: maternal vascular malperfusion; PE: preeclampsia; PlGF: placental growth factor; Siglec-6: sialic acid binding immunoglobulin-like lectin; VEGF121: vascular endothelial growth factor A, isoform 121; vWF: von Willebrand factor; SMAC: Diablo homolog, mitochondrial; C4b: Complement C4b.

At 8–16 weeks of gestation, multi-marker proteomics models predicted early preeclampsia with 31% sensitivity (FPR = 10%), which was higher than that of PlGF alone (17%). The importance of individual proteins in the prediction models was evaluated by the percentage of the 200 bootstrap iterations in which they were included in the best LDA prediction model. Matrix metalloproteinase 7 (MMP-7) and glycoprotein IIbIIIa (gpIIbIIIa) were chosen in the best model in 42% and 23% of the iterations, respectively, while high-mobility group protein 1 (HMG-1) and von Willebrand factor were selected in 10% of the iterations (Table 2). Individual patient longitudinal profiles of MMP-7 and gpIIbIIIa protein abundance are presented in Fig 2A and 2B, respectively.

10.1371/journal.pone.0217273.g002Fig 2

Longitudinal maternal plasma abundance of MMP-7 and gpIIbIIIA in normal pregnancy and early preeclampsia.

Each line corresponds to a single patient (grey = normal pregnancy, red = early preeclampsia). Individual dots represent samples at 8–16 weeks (A, B) and 16.1–22 weeks (C, D) of gestation. Samples taken at the time of diagnosis with early preeclampsia are marked with an “x” and were not included in the analysis but only displayed. The thick black line represents the mean value in normal pregnancy. AUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the protein using data in the current interval; early PE: early preeclampsia; FC: fold change; gpIIbIIIa: glycoprotein IIb/IIIa; MMP-7: matrix metalloproteinase 7; MoM: multiples of the mean; p: the nominal significance p-value comparing mean MoM values between groups with a moderated t-test. Log2FC is the log (base 2) of the fold change between the cases and control groups, with negative values denoting lower MoM values in cases than in controls.

At 16.1–22 weeks of gestation, multi-marker prediction models identified women at risk to develop early preeclampsia with a sensitivity of 71% (FPR = 10%) which was again higher than the estimate for PlGF alone (18%). MMP-7, gpIIbIIIa, and Soggy-1 were selected in the best model 90%, 18%, and 10% of the time, respectively. The longitudinal profiles of MMP-7 and gpIIbIIIa, emphasizing the differences in the samples taken between 16.1 to 22 weeks of gestation, are presented in Fig 2C and 2D.

At 22.1–28 weeks of gestation, the proteins most often selected in the best risk model for early preeclampsia out of 200 bootstrap iterations were sialic acid binding immunoglobulin-like lectin 6 (siglec-6) (58%), PlGF (52%), activin-A (25%), and VEGF121 (18%). Longitudinal profiles of these four proteins emphasizing the differences in the samples taken between 22.1 and 28 weeks of gestation are shown in Fig 3.

10.1371/journal.pone.0217273.g003Fig 3

Longitudinal maternal plasma abundance of siglec−6 (A), PlGF (B), VEGF121 (C), and activin-A (D) in normal pregnancy and early preeclampsia cases, highlighting differences at 22.1–28 weeks. AUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; early PE: early preeclampsia; FC: fold change; PlGF: placental growth factor; Siglec-6: sialic acid binding immunoglobulin-like lectin; VEGF121: vascular endothelial growth factor A, isoform 121.

At 28.1–32 weeks of gestation, the bootstrap-estimated sensitivity of multi-marker risk models was 85% (FPR = 10%), with activated leukocyte cell-adhesion molecule (ALCAM), siglec-6, and VEGF121 being the most frequently selected markers (38%, 32%, and 32% of the bootstrap iterations, respectively). The longitudinal profiles of ALCAM are depicted in Fig 4.

10.1371/journal.pone.0217273.g004Fig 4

Longitudinal maternal plasma ALCAM abundance in normal pregnancy and early preeclampsia cases, highlighting differences at 28.1–32 weeks.

ALCAM: activated leukocyte cell adhesion molecule; AUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; early PE: early preeclampsia; FC: fold change; MVM: maternal vascular malperfusion.

Of note, prediction performance estimates for early preeclampsia were slightly higher when estimated by repeated cross-validation (S1 Table) than by bootstrap (Table 2), yet the variance of the estimates with the former method was somewhat higher (data not shown). The most predictive proteins retained in the prediction models were similar between the two approaches (see Tables 2and S1).

Prediction of early preeclampsia according to the presence of placental lesions consistent with maternal vascular malperfusion

To determine whether the sub-classification of early preeclampsia cases by placental lesions can lead to different protein markers and/or better prediction performance, a secondary analysis was performed that included the control group and only cases with placental lesions consistent with MVM. Bootstrap-based sensitivity estimates (at a fixed FPR of 10%) were higher for cases with MVM compared to those for the overall early preeclampsia group (16.1–22 weeks: 90% versus 71%; 22.1–28 weeks: 87% versus 81%; and 28.1–32 weeks: 90% versus 85%) (see bars in Fig 1and Table 2).

In addition to a higher sensitivity for cases with placental MVM lesions compared to the overall early preeclampsia group, differences in the sets of best predictors also emerged at particular intervals of gestation (Table 2). For example, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) at 8–16 weeks (see raw data in Fig 5) and siglec-6 at 22.1–32 weeks of gestation were more frequently selected as the best markers for early preeclampsia with MVM lesions than for overall early preeclampsia (see Table 2).

10.1371/journal.pone.0217273.g005Fig 5

Longitudinal maternal plasma ACE2 abundance in normal pregnancy and early preeclampsia cases, highlighting differences at 8–16 weeks of gestation.

See Fig 2 legend for more details. ACE2: angiotensin-converting enzyme 2; AUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; early PE: early preeclampsia; FC: fold change; MVM: maternal vascular malperfusion.

Prediction of early preeclampsia according to disease severity

When only severe early preeclampsia cases were included in the analysis and compared to normal pregnancy cases, the sensitivity of analysis (10% FPR) was significantly higher than for overall early preeclampsia (90% vs 71%) in the 16.1–22 week interval. At this gestational-age interval, but unlike early preeclampsia with MVM that was predicted mostly by an increase in MMP-7, the prediction for severe early preeclampsia also involved the increase in gpIIbIIIa for 14% of the models trained on bootstrap samples of the original dataset. Other differences in the set of best predictors for severe early preeclampsia compared to overall early preeclampsia were noted in the 8–16 weeks gestational-age interval (see Table 2).

Proteomic markers that differentiate between early and late preeclampsia

Discrimination between early preeclampsia and both normal pregnancy and late preeclampsia was rather low in the 8-16-week and 16.1-22-week intervals (21% and 31% sensitivity, respectively, FPR = 10%) and involved different sets of proteins than those found when the comparison was only against the normal pregnancy group (Table 3). However, later in gestation, the sensitivity of multi-marker models to discriminate between early preeclampsia and both the controls and late preeclampsia increased to 77% and 82% at 16.1-22-week and 22.1-28-week intervals, respectively (FPR = 10%).

Of note, discriminating early preeclampsia from both normal pregnancy and late preeclampsia cases involved more stringent cut-offs for the same proteins (see Fig 6) and also new proteins such as ficolin 2 (FCN2) (see Table 3).

10.1371/journal.pone.0217273.g006Fig 6

Longitudinal maternal plasma abundance of siglec-6 (A) and activin-A (B) in normal pregnancy and early preeclampsia, highlighting differences at 22.1–28 weeks. Blue dots correspond to samples taken from late preeclampsia cases. AUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; early PE: early preeclampsia; FC: fold change; late PE: late preeclampsia; Siglec-6: sialic acid binding immunoglobulin-like lectin.

10.1371/journal.pone.0217273.t003Table 3
Summary of bootstrap results for prediction of early preeclampsia versus normal pregnancy and late preeclampsia.
OutcomeSample GA (weeks)AUCSensitivitySpecificityPredictor Symbols (% inclusion in best combination)
Early PE8–160.550.210.90gpIIbIIIa(34%)
Early PE16.1–220.650.310.90Soggy-1(26%); IMDH2(20%); Siglec-6(14%); PKC-D(12%); MMP-12(10%); RBP(10%)
Early PE22.1–280.890.770.90Siglec-6(72%); Activin A(63%); VEGF121(34%)
Early PE28.1–320.930.820.90Siglec-6(72%); ALCAM(15%); FCN2(14%); VEGF121(12%)

ALCAM: activated leukocyte cell adhesion molecule; AUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; early PE: early preeclampsia; FCN2: ficolin 2; GA: gestational age; gpIIbIIIa: glycoprotein IIb/IIIa; IMDH2: inosine-5'-monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMDH2); MMP: matrix metalloproteinase; PKC-D: protein kinase C delta type; RBP: retinol binding protein; Siglec-6: sialic acid binding immunoglobulin-like lectin; VEGF121: vascular endothelial growth factor A, isoform 121. Only proteins selected in 10% or more of the 200 bootstrap iterations are listed.

Differential protein abundance summary

In addition to the proteins included in the parsimonious models predictive of early preeclampsia at different gestational-age intervals (Table 2), other proteins (total, n = 175) had a significant differential abundance (after adjustment for body mass index, smoking status, maternal age, and parity) in at least one gestational-age interval (q-value < 0.1).

S2 Table presents the linear fold changes of MoM values between the early preeclampsia and normal pregnancy groups as well as the nominal and FDR-adjusted p-values (q-values) for each gestational-age interval. Additionally, the heatmap presented in Fig 7summarizes the differential abundance patterns across all gestational-age intervals included in this study. There were 2, 37, 20, and 153 proteins associated with early preeclampsia at 8–16, 16.1–22, 22.1–28, and 28.1–32 weeks of gestation, respectively.

10.1371/journal.pone.0217273.g007Fig 7

A summary of differential protein abundance between early preeclampsia and normal pregnancy throughout gestation.

The values shown using a color scheme represent the log2 fold change in MoM values between the cases and controls (green = lower, red = higher mean MoM in cases versus controls). Fold changes >1.5 (absolute log2 fold change >0.58) were reset to 1.5 to enhance visualization of the data.

MMP-7 was elevated in three of the four gestational-age intervals. IL-1 R4 (interleukin-1 receptor-like 1), siglec-6, and activin-A were elevated while FCN2, MMP-12, VEGF121, and PlGF were lower in all three intervals from 16.1 weeks of gestation onward. Differential abundance analyses were also summarized for early preeclampsia with MVM (S3 Table and S1 Fig), as well as for severe early preeclampsia (S4 Table and S1 Fig) compared to normal pregnancy.

Biological processes and pathways perturbed in early preeclampsia during gestation

Gene ontology analysis of the proteins that changed significantly between patients with a normal pregnancy and those with early preeclampsia was performed for each gestational-age interval. At 16.1–22 weeks of gestation, there were 6; at 22.1–28 weeks, there were 7; and at 28.1–32 weeks, there were 30 biological processes significantly associated with early preeclampsia (Table 4). Biological processes associated with protein changes in at least one gestational age interval included cell adhesion, response to hypoxia, positive regulation of endothelial cell proliferation, extracellular matrix disassembly, and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor signaling pathway (all: q < 0.1) (Table 4).

10.1371/journal.pone.0217273.t004Table 4
Biological processes enriched in proteins with a differential abundance between early preeclampsia and normal pregnancy.
IntervalNameNORpq
xenobiotic metabolic process347.10.0000.008
negative chemotaxis331.50.0010.008
16.1–22small molecule metabolic process103.10.0060.0485
weeksregulation of transcription from RNA polymerase II promoter39.50.0070.0485
integrin-mediated signaling pathway37.30.0140.071
extracellular matrix disassembly53.70.0190.0838
positive regulation of endothelial cell proliferation411.70.0010.0128
cellular calcium ion homeostasis37.00.0140.0866
response to hypoxia35.10.0310.0866
22.1–28cell adhesion53.30.0330.0866
weeksresponse to drug43.70.0360.0866
positive regulation of angiogenesis34.60.0400.0866
extracellular matrix disassembly34.10.0530.0976
blood coagulation362.70.0000.0042
platelet degranulation183.90.0000.0045
blood coagulation, intrinsic pathway88.90.0000.0123
sprouting angiogenesis613.10.0000.0218
platelet activation222.50.0010.036
vascular endothelial growth factor signaling pathway425.90.0010.063
positive regulation of endothelial cell migration75.80.0020.0683
response to cold3Inf0.0020.0703
plasminogen activation3Inf0.0020.0703
nervous system development123.10.0030.071
blood circulation58.10.0030.071
negative regulation of cell-substrate adhesion413.00.0040.071
positive regulation of macrophage activation413.00.0040.071
28.1–32positive regulation of synapse assembly413.00.0040.071
weeksliver development65.60.0040.071
fibrinolysis74.60.0040.071
response to hypoxia122.90.0050.071
hematopoietic progenitor cell differentiation48.60.0080.086
response to vitamin D48.60.0080.086
negative regulation of fat cell differentiation48.60.0080.086
positive regulation of acute inflammatory response319.30.0090.086
cell-substrate junction assembly319.30.0090.086
negative regulation of ossification319.30.0090.086
negative regulation of B cell differentiation319.30.0090.086
cellular response to follicle-stimulating hormone stimulus319.30.0090.086
negative regulation of angiogenesis73.80.0090.086
negative regulation of cysteine-type endopeptidase activity involved in apoptotic process73.80.0090.086
positive regulation of neuron differentiation64.40.0100.0895
positive regulation of blood vessel endothelial cell migration55.40.0100.0895
positive regulation of MAPK cascade93.00.0110.0953
ID: Gene Ontology (GO) biological processes identifier; N: number of significant proteins assigned to the GO term; OR: odds ratio for enrichment; p: p-value; q: false discovery rate-adjusted p-value.

No signaling pathways documented in the KEGG database [75] were found to be perturbed given the differential protein abundance observed in each interval of gestation.

Discussion

Principal findings of the study

The principal findings of the study are as follows: 1) At 16.1–22 weeks of gestation, multi-protein models predicted early preeclampsia with a sensitivity of 71% (FPR = 10%). The most reliable predictors in this interval were an elevated MMP-7 and gpIIbIIIa complex; 2) the best predictors of the subsequent development of early preeclampsia at 22.1–28 weeks of gestation were lower PlGF and VEGF121 as well as elevated siglec-6 and activin-A (81% sensitivity, FPR = 10%); 3) at 28.1–32 weeks of gestation, the sensitivity of multi-protein models was 85% (FPR = 10%) with the most reliable predictors being ALCAM, siglec-6, and VEGF121; 4) the increase in siglec-6, activin-A, and VEGF121 at 22.1–28 weeks of gestation differentiated women who subsequently developed early preeclampsia from those who had a normal pregnancy or late preeclampsia (sensitivity 77%, FPR = 10%); 5) the sensitivity of proteomic models for early preeclampsia in women with placental lesions consistent with MVM was higher than that of the models reported for the overall early preeclampsia group from 16.1 weeks of gestation onward; and 6) the sensitivity of prediction models was higher for severe early preeclampsia than for the entire early preeclampsia group (84% versus 71% at 16.1–22 weeks).

Of note, differential protein abundance results and, hence, downstream enrichment analyses are expected to vary among the different intervals of gestation due to several factors, such as: 1) differences in the sets of patients that contributed one sample in each interval, due to sample availability or to exclusion from analysis of samples at/or past the gestational age at diagnosis (see Methods); 2) differences in the magnitude of underlying disease-specific maternal plasma protein changes with preeclampsia; and 3) differences in the level of noise in the data, contributing non-biological variability.

Proteomics prediction models for the identification of patients with preeclampsia

Biomarkers for the identification of patients at risk for obstetrical syndromes such as small-for-gestational-age neonates [34,7882], spontaneous preterm birth [8394], fetal death [95105], and preeclampsia [12,47,49,50,56,72,106113] have been proposed. For preeclampsia, prediction models have evolved from ones that used maternal background characteristics alone (e.g., obstetrical history, chronic hypertension, familial history of preeclampsia, obesity) [114,115] to those that combine maternal demographic characteristics, obstetrical history [116,117], mean blood pressure [118], uterine artery Doppler studies [52,54,119], and molecular biomarkers [56,120122] (e.g., PAPP-A [88,123125] and inhibin-A [124,126128]). Some of the most predictive biochemical markers include angiogenic and anti-angiogenic factors [33,129134] (PlGF [34,135137], sVEGFR-1[138142], and endoglin [143148]), or their ratios [34,129,149155]. A limitation of current screening methods for preeclampsia is the requirement of Doppler velocimetry, which is not readily available in middle- and low-resource populations. The detection rate for early preeclampsia drops to 77% and 57% at FPRs of 10% and 5%, respectively, in the absence of Doppler information [156]. Therefore, there would still be a benefit in developing accurate prediction models based solely on molecular information.

Discovery of molecular markers for obstetrical complications is often undertaken using “omics” technologies [157165]: genomics [166,167], transcriptomics [168175], proteomics [72,165,176187], metabolomics [188192], peptidomics [193198], and lipidomics [199,200]. In particular, maternal proteomic profiles in preeclampsia were reported in maternal serum/plasma [175177,180,201210], urine [211213], amniotic fluid [214,215], and the placenta [179,182,216228]. However, most maternal plasma/serum proteomics studies to date did not involve samples collected longitudinally to determine how early molecular markers change their profiles prior to the disease onset and whether these changes are consistent throughout pregnancy, or the studies involved a small sample size.

The current study is one of the largest in this field and uses a new proteomics technology based on aptamers that allows the measurement of 1,125 proteins. Using this platform (Somalogic, Inc.), we and other investigators reported the stereotypic longitudinal changes of the maternal plasma proteome in normal pregnancy [229,230] and late preeclampsia [72]. Our current report observing that an increased maternal plasma abundance of MMP-7 and gpIIbIIIa is predictive of early preeclampsia during the first half of pregnancy is novel.

Increased maternal plasma MMP-7 precedes diagnosis of preeclampsia

A possible explanation for the increased maternal plasma MMP-7 in preeclampsia is that it is a marker of abnormal placentation. MMP-7 is expressed in the decidua and trophoblast [231,232] and has been proposed to play a role in the process of transformation of the spiral arteries [233,234]. There is also histological evidence to support the involvement of MMP-7 in the processes associated with the development of preeclampsia [231] and early preeclampsia [233]. Additionally, MMP-7 can act as a sheddase for syndecan-1 [235,236], a major transmembrane heparan sulfate proteoglycan expressed on the surface (glycocalyx) of epithelial, endothelial, and syncytiotrophoblast cells [237239], which are implicated in the pathophysiology of preeclampsia [240243]. MMP-7 may also be involved in processes leading to the formation of atherosclerotic plaques [244] that show characteristics (e.g., lipid-laden macrophages) similar to acute atherosis of the spiral arteries associated with preeclampsia [245,246]. Of note in our previous study that used the same proteomics platform, MMP-7 was found to be a sensitive biomarker during the first half of pregnancy for the detection of patients who subsequently developed late preeclampsia [72]; herein, we showed that is also the case for early preeclampsia.

The role of glycoprotein IIbIIIa in early preeclampsia

To our knowledge, this is the first study to report that changes in the abundance of gpIIbIIIa in the maternal plasma are predictive of subsequent development of early preeclampsia. In this patient population, at 8–16 weeks of gestation, gpIIbIIIa performed better than PlGF (currently used to screen for preeclampsia) [48,50,51,137] for the detection of patients who subsequently developed early preeclampsia when profiled with the Somalogic platform (AUC = 0.60 for PlGF and 0.72 for gpIIbIIIa, see Table 2and Fig 2B).

Glycoprotein IIb-IIIa is a membrane glycoprotein [247], the most common platelet receptor [247,248]. After a conformational change occurring during platelet activation [249], it interacts with ligands (e.g., von Willebrand factor and fibrinogen) to play a critical role in platelet aggregation and the cross-linkage of platelets into a hemostatic plug or thrombus [250253]. Aspirin inhibits the expression of gpIIbIIIa by platelets [254]. This fact is important given that aspirin is currently recommended by regulatory bodies in the United States for the prevention of preeclampsia [255257]; moreover, this medication has recently been reported to reduce the rate of preterm preeclampsia by 62% [40]. Our findings suggest that gpIIbIIIa inhibitors could be further developed for the prevention of early preeclampsia.

Presence of placental lesions of maternal vascular malperfusion and disease severity increases the sensitivity of proteomic models for early preeclampsia

The sensitivity of the proteomic models at each gestational-age interval from 16.1 weeks onward was higher for cases that had placental lesions consistent with MVM than for the overall group of women with early preeclampsia and even compared to those with severe early preeclampsia. Maternal vascular malperfusion is a prevalent placental histologic finding in patients with early preeclampsia [28], and 73% (24/33) of cases in the current study had these lesions. These results further support a previous observation that the prediction performance of angiogenic index-1 (PlGF/sVEGFR-1) for preterm delivery (<34 weeks) is higher for women with these types of placental lesions [63].

Of interest, even when only patients with lesions consistent with MVM were compared to those with a normal pregnancy, proteins of placental origin (e.g., PlGF and siglec-6) were still the most predictive of early preeclampsia, but only after 22 weeks of gestation. This finding is consistent with our earlier study in late preeclampsia [72] and with previous longitudinal studies of angiogenic and anti-angiogenic factors [35,46,151]. Moreover, the data presented herein also support our previous systems biology study in early preeclampsia showing that siglec-6 expression in the placenta increased in the second half of pregnancy due to a hypoxic-ischemic trophoblastic response to placental malperfusion [258].

Clinical implications

The current study demonstrates the potential of maternal plasma protein changes to identify women at risk of early preeclampsia based on a single blood test. The use of disease-risk models based solely on proteomic markers would be similar to first- and second-trimester aneuploidy tests [259262]. Such an approach can be implemented in various clinical settings, especially in low-resource areas, where Doppler velocimetry of the uterine arteries is not readily available. Moreover, the proteomics biomarkers identified in this study may assist in the introduction of novel therapeutic agents (e.g., gpIIbIIIa inhibitors) for the prevention of early preeclampsia.

Strengths and limitations of the study

The major strengths of this study are its longitudinal design, the number of patients and their stratification according to placental histology, and the large number of proteins tested. In addition, best practices in terms of model development and validation were based on our award-winning classifier development pipeline [6769]. A limitation of this study is the fact that the aptamer-based assays did not include internal standards to generate protein concentrations (as opposed to fluorescence-based abundance); hence, further studies would be needed to generate protein concentration cut-offs. Additionally, the majority of the patients included in this study were of African-American lineage, and the generalization of findings to other ethnic groups needs to be further examined. Lastly, for three of the 33 early preeclampsia cases, the information regarding 24-hour proteinuria was not available; hence, we were reliant on dipstick evaluation.

Conclusions

Aptamer-based proteomic profiling of maternal plasma identified novel as well as previously known markers for early preeclampsia. At 16.1–22 weeks of gestation, more than two-thirds of patients who subsequently develop early preeclampsia can be identified by an elevated MMP-7 and gpIIbIIIa in maternal plasma (10% FPR). High abundance of siglec-6, VEGF121, and activin-A observed in the maternal circulation at 22.1–28 weeks of gestation was more specific to early rather than late preeclampsia. Proteomic markers were more sensitive for early preeclampsia cases with placental lesions consistent with MVM as well as those with a severe phenotype.

Supporting information

S1 Table

Summary of cross-validation results for prediction of early preeclampsia vs normal pregnancy.

The number in parentheses following the name of each protein (column Predictor Symbols) represents the percentage of folds in which the protein was selected in the best model. Only proteins selected in 10% or more of the 3x67 = 201 folds are listed. ACE2: angiotensin converting enzyme 2; ALCAM: activated leukocyte cell adhesion molecule; AUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; GA: gestational age; gpIIbIIIa: glycoprotein IIb/IIIa; HMG-1: high-mobility group protein 1; MMP: matrix metalloproteinase; early PE: early preeclampsia; MVM: maternal vascular malperfusion; PE: preeclampsia; PlGF: placental growth factor; Siglec-6: sialic acid binding immunoglobulin-like lectin; VEGF121: vascular endothelial growth factor A, isoform 121; vWF: von Willebrand factor.

(XLSX)

pone.0217273.s001.xlsxClick here for additional data file.
S2 Table

Summary of the differential abundance analysis between early preeclampsia and normal pregnancy in four intervals of gestation.

List of 175 proteins with significantly different abundance between early preeclampsia and normal pregnancy (q < 0.1) in at least one interval, after adjustment for body mass index, maternal age, parity and smoking status. FC: linear fold change, with negative values denoting lower levels while positive values denote higher levels in cases than in controls.

(XLSX)

pone.0217273.s002.xlsxClick here for additional data file.
S3 Table

Summary of the differential abundance analysis between early preeclampsia and normal pregnancy in four intervals of gestation.

List of 76 proteins with significantly different abundance between early preeclampsia with MVM and normal pregnancy (q < 0.1) in at least one interval, after adjustment for body mass index, maternal age, parity and smoking status. FC: linear fold change, with negative values denoting lower levels while positive values denote higher levels in cases than in controls.

(XLSX)

pone.0217273.s003.xlsxClick here for additional data file.
S4 Table

Summary of the differential abundance analysis between early preeclampsia and normal pregnancy in four intervals of gestation.

List of 130 proteins with significantly different abundance between severe early preeclampsia and normal pregnancy (q < 0.1) in at least one interval, after adjustment for body mass index, maternal age, parity and smoking status. FC: linear fold change, with negative values denoting lower levels while positive values denote higher levels in cases than in controls.

(XLSX)

pone.0217273.s004.xlsxClick here for additional data file.
S1 File

Proteomics data used in the analyses presented in this study.

Protein abundance data for each sample (rows) and each of the 1125 proteins is given in this table. Note, unlike for the early preeclampsia group, data for normal pregnancy group is the same as in in [72], and included in this file for convenience. ID: anonymized identifier indicator of the patient, GA: gestational age at sample, GADiagnosis: gestational age at diagnosis for cases; EarlyPE: is 1 for early preeclampsia and 0 for normal pregnancy. EarlyPE_MVM: is 1 for early preeclampsia with maternal vascular malperfusion and 0 for normal pregnancy or early preeclampsia without maternal vascular malperfusion; EarlyPE_Severe: is 1 for severe early preeclampsia cases; Protein symbol and names provided by Somalogic, Inc, are the same as S1 File in [72].

(CSV)

pone.0217273.s005.csvClick here for additional data file.
S1 Fig

Differential protein abundance analysis by generalized additive mixed models.

Longitudinal differences in protein abundance assessed generalized additive mixed models are shown for proteins listed in Table 2. For each protein, differences are shown between early preeclampsia (PE) and controls (top left) as well as between mild or severe PE and controls (top right) and between PE with or without maternal vascular malperfusion (MVM) and controls. Thick lines show averages while grey bands give the 95% confidence interval.

(PDF)

pone.0217273.s006.pdfClick here for additional data file.

Acknowledgments

We thank the physicians, nurses, and research assistants from the Center for Advanced Obstetrical Care and Research, Intrapartum Unit, PRB Clinical Laboratory, and PRB Perinatal Translational Science Laboratory for their help with collecting and processing samples.

References

  • 1. RomeroR (1996) The child is the father of the man. Prenat Neonat Med1: 811.[Google Scholar]
  • 2. BrosensI, PijnenborgR, VercruysseL, RomeroR (2011) The "Great Obstetrical Syndromes" are associated with disorders of deep placentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol204: 193201. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 3. RomeroR, LockwoodC, OyarzunE, HobbinsJC (1988) Toxemia: new concepts in an old disease. Semin Perinatol12: 302323. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 4. von DadelszenP, MageeLA, RobertsJM (2003) Subclassification of preeclampsia. Hypertens Pregnancy22: 143148. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 5. VattenLJ, SkjaervenR (2004) Is pre-eclampsia more than one disease?Bjog111: 298302. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 6. ValensiseH, VasapolloB, GagliardiG, NovelliGP (2008) Early and late preeclampsia: two different maternal hemodynamic states in the latent phase of the disease. Hypertension52: 873880. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 7. RaymondD, PetersonE (2011) A critical review of early-onset and late-onset preeclampsia. Obstet Gynecol Surv66: 497506. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 8. LisonkovaS, JosephKS (2013) Incidence of preeclampsia: risk factors and outcomes associated with early- versus late-onset disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol209: 544.e541-544.e512.[Google Scholar]
  • 9. TranquilliAL, BrownMA, ZeemanGG, DekkerG, SibaiBM (2013) The definition of severe and early-onset preeclampsia. Statements from the International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy (ISSHP). Pregnancy Hypertens3: 4447. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 10. VerlohrenS, MelchiorreK, KhalilA, ThilaganathanB (2014) Uterine artery Doppler, birth weight and timing of onset of pre-eclampsia: providing insights into the dual etiology of late-onset pre-eclampsia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol44: 293298. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 11. SotoE, RomeroR, KusanovicJP, OggeG, HusseinY, YeoL,et al(2012) Late-onset preeclampsia is associated with an imbalance of angiogenic and anti-angiogenic factors in patients with and without placental lesions consistent with maternal underperfusion. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med25: 498507. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 12. Parra-CorderoM, RodrigoR, BarjaP, BoscoC, RencoretG, Sepulveda-MartinezA,et al(2013) Prediction of early and late pre-eclampsia from maternal characteristics, uterine artery Doppler and markers of vasculogenesis during first trimester of pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol41: 538544. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 13. Kucukgoz GulecU, OzgunenFT, BuyukkurtS, GuzelAB, UrunsakIF, DemirSC,et al(2013) Comparison of clinical and laboratory findings in early- and late-onset preeclampsia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med26: 12281233. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 14. LisonkovaS, SabrY, MayerC, YoungC, SkollA, JosephKS (2014) Maternal morbidity associated with early-onset and late-onset preeclampsia. Obstet Gynecol124: 771781. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 15. VeerbeekJH, HermesW, BreimerAY, van RijnBB, KoenenSV, MolBW,et al(2015) Cardiovascular disease risk factors after early-onset preeclampsia, late-onset preeclampsia, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. Hypertension65: 600606. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 16. BokslagA, TeunissenPW, FranssenC, van KesterenF, KampO, GanzevoortW,et al(2017) Effect of early-onset preeclampsia on cardiovascular risk in the fifth decade of life. Am J Obstet Gynecol216: 523.e521-523.e527.[Google Scholar]
  • 17. ChristensenM, KronborgCS, CarlsenRK, EldrupN, KnudsenUB (2017) Early gestational age at preeclampsia onset is associated with subclinical atherosclerosis 12 years after delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand96: 10841092. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 18. JelinAC, ChengYW, ShafferBL, KaimalAJ, LittleSE, CaugheyAB (2010) Early-onset preeclampsia and neonatal outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med23: 389392. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 19. KovoM, SchreiberL, Ben-HaroushA, GoldE, GolanA, BarJ (2012) The placental component in early-onset and late-onset preeclampsia in relation to fetal growth restriction. Prenat Diagn32: 632637. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 20. StubertJ, UllmannS, DieterichM, DiedrichD, ReimerT (2014) Clinical differences between early- and late-onset severe preeclampsia and analysis of predictors for perinatal outcome. J Perinat Med42: 617627. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 21. MadazliR, YukselMA, ImamogluM, TutenA, OnculM, AydinB,et al(2014) Comparison of clinical and perinatal outcomes in early- and late-onset preeclampsia. Arch Gynecol Obstet290: 5357. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 22. KhodzhaevaZS, KoganYA, ShmakovRG, KlimenchenkoNI, AkatyevaAS, VavinaOV,et al(2016) Clinical and pathogenetic features of early- and late-onset pre-eclampsia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med29: 29802986. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 23. MorO, StavskyM, Yitshak-SadeM, MastroliaSA, Beer-WeiselR, Rafaeli-YehudaiT,et al(2016) Early onset preeclampsia and cerebral palsy: a double hit model?Am J Obstet Gynecol214: 105.e101-109.[Google Scholar]
  • 24. IacobelliS, BonsanteF, RobillardPY (2017) Comparison of risk factors and perinatal outcomes in early onset and late onset preeclampsia: A cohort based study in Reunion Island. J Reprod Immunol123: 1216. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 25. MoldenhauerJS, StanekJ, WarshakC, KhouryJ, SibaiB (2003) The frequency and severity of placental findings in women with preeclampsia are gestational age dependent. Am J Obstet Gynecol189: 11731177. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 26. van der MerweJL, HallDR, WrightC, SchubertP, GroveD (2010) Are early and late preeclampsia distinct subclasses of the disease—what does the placenta reveal?Hypertens Pregnancy29: 457467. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 27. SebireNJ, GoldinRD, ReganL (2005) Term preeclampsia is associated with minimal histopathological placental features regardless of clinical severity. J Obstet Gynaecol25: 117118. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 28. OggeG, ChaiworapongsaT, RomeroR, HusseinY, KusanovicJP, YeoL,et al(2011) Placental lesions associated with maternal underperfusion are more frequent in early-onset than in late-onset preeclampsia. J Perinat Med39: 641652. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 29. RedmanCW, SargentIL, StaffAC (2014) IFPA Senior Award Lecture: making sense of pre-eclampsia—two placental causes of preeclampsia?Placenta35Suppl: S2025.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 30. NelsonDB, ZiadieMS, McIntireDD, RogersBB, LevenoKJ (2014) Placental pathology suggesting that preeclampsia is more than one disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol210: 66.e61-67.[Google Scholar]
  • 31. MaynardSE, MinJY, MerchanJ, LimKH, LiJ, MondalS,et al(2003) Excess placental soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt1) may contribute to endothelial dysfunction, hypertension, and proteinuria in preeclampsia. J Clin Invest111: 649658. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 32. LindheimerMD, RomeroR (2007) Emerging roles of antiangiogenic and angiogenic proteins in pathogenesis and prediction of preeclampsia. Hypertension50: 3536. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 33. VattenLJ, EskildA, NilsenTI, JeanssonS, JenumPA, StaffAC (2007) Changes in circulating level of angiogenic factors from the first to second trimester as predictors of preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol196: 239.e231-236.[Google Scholar]
  • 34. ErezO, RomeroR, EspinozaJ, FuW, TodemD, KusanovicJP,et al(2008) The change in concentrations of angiogenic and anti-angiogenic factors in maternal plasma between the first and second trimesters in risk assessment for the subsequent development of preeclampsia and small-for-gestational age. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med21: 279287. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 35. RomeroR, NienJK, EspinozaJ, TodemD, FuW, ChungH,et al(2008) A longitudinal study of angiogenic (placental growth factor) and anti-angiogenic (soluble endoglin and soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1) factors in normal pregnancy and patients destined to develop preeclampsia and deliver a small for gestational age neonate. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med21: 923. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 36. GotschF, RomeroR, KusanovicJP, ChaiworapongsaT, DombrowskiM, ErezO,et al(2008) Preeclampsia and small-for-gestational age are associated with decreased concentrations of a factor involved in angiogenesis: soluble Tie-2. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med21: 389402. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 37. VaisbuchE, WhittyJE, HassanSS, RomeroR, KusanovicJP, CottonDB,et al(2011) Circulating angiogenic and antiangiogenic factors in women with eclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol204: 152.e151-159.[Google Scholar]
  • 38. BujoldE, RobergeS, LacasseY, BureauM, AudibertF, MarcouxS,et al(2010) Prevention of preeclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction with aspirin started in early pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol116: 402414. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 39. BaschatAA (2015) First-trimester screening for pre-eclampsia: moving from personalized risk prediction to prevention. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol45: 119129. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 40. RolnikDL, WrightD, PoonLC, O'GormanN, SyngelakiA, de Paco MatallanaC,et al(2017) Aspirin versus Placebo in Pregnancies at High Risk for Preterm Preeclampsia. N Engl J Med377: 613622. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 41. GroomKM, DavidAL (2018) The role of aspirin, heparin, and other interventions in the prevention and treatment of fetal growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol218: S829s840. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 42. StampalijaT, ChaiworapongsaT, RomeroR, ChaemsaithongP, KorzeniewskiSJ, SchwartzAG,et al(2013) Maternal plasma concentrations of sST2 and angiogenic/anti-angiogenic factors in preeclampsia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med26: 13591370. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 43. BaschatAA, MagderLS, DoyleLE, AtlasRO, JenkinsCB, BlitzerMG (2014) Prediction of preeclampsia utilizing the first trimester screening examination. Am J Obstet Gynecol211: 514.e511-517.[Google Scholar]
  • 44. GalloDM, WrightD, CasanovaC, CampaneroM, NicolaidesKH (2016) Competing risks model in screening for preeclampsia by maternal factors and biomarkers at 19–24 weeks' gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol214: 619 e611-619 e617.[Google Scholar]
  • 45. TsiakkasA, SaiidY, WrightA, WrightD, NicolaidesKH (2016) Competing risks model in screening for preeclampsia by maternal factors and biomarkers at 30–34 weeks' gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol215: 87 e81-87 e17.[Google Scholar]
  • 46. RomeroR, ChaemsaithongP, TarcaAL, KorzeniewskiSJ, MaymonE, PacoraP,et al(2017) Maternal plasma-soluble ST2 concentrations are elevated prior to the development of early and late onset preeclampsia—a longitudinal study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med: 115.[Google Scholar]
  • 47. AkolekarR, SyngelakiA, PoonL, WrightD, NicolaidesKH (2013) Competing risks model in early screening for preeclampsia by biophysical and biochemical markers. Fetal Diagn Ther33: 815. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 48. MyersJE, KennyLC, McCowanLM, ChanEH, DekkerGA, PostonL,et al(2013) Angiogenic factors combined with clinical risk factors to predict preterm pre-eclampsia in nulliparous women: a predictive test accuracy study. Bjog120: 12151223. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 49. O'GormanN, WrightD, SyngelakiA, AkolekarR, WrightA, PoonLC,et al(2016) Competing risks model in screening for preeclampsia by maternal factors and biomarkers at 11–13 weeks gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol214: 103.e101-103.e112.[Google Scholar]
  • 50. CrovettoF, FiguerasF, TriunfoS, CrispiF, Rodriguez-SuredaV, DominguezC,et al(2015) First trimester screening for early and late preeclampsia based on maternal characteristics, biophysical parameters, and angiogenic factors. Prenat Diagn35: 183191. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 51. EspinozaJ, RomeroR, NienJK, GomezR, KusanovicJP, GoncalvesLF,et al(2007) Identification of patients at risk for early onset and/or severe preeclampsia with the use of uterine artery Doppler velocimetry and placental growth factor. Am J Obstet Gynecol196: 326.e321-313.[Google Scholar]
  • 52. CrispiF, LlurbaE, DominguezC, Martin-GallanP, CaberoL, GratacosE (2008) Predictive value of angiogenic factors and uterine artery Doppler for early- versus late-onset pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol31: 303309. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 53. MelchiorreK, WormaldB, LeslieK, BhideA, ThilaganathanB (2008) First-trimester uterine artery Doppler indices in term and preterm pre-eclampsia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol32: 133137. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 54. LlurbaE, CarrerasE, GratacosE, JuanM, AstorJ, VivesA,et al(2009) Maternal history and uterine artery Doppler in the assessment of risk for development of early- and late-onset preeclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol Int2009: 275613[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 55. PoonLC, StaboulidouI, MaizN, PlasenciaW, NicolaidesKH (2009) Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy: screening by uterine artery Doppler at 11–13 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol34: 142148. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 56. AudibertF, BoucoiranI, AnN, AleksandrovN, DelvinE, BujoldE,et al(2010) Screening for preeclampsia using first-trimester serum markers and uterine artery Doppler in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol203: 383.e381-388.[Google Scholar]
  • 57. VenturaW, De Paco MatallanaC, Prieto-SanchezMT, MacizoMI, PertegalM, NietoA,et al(2015) Uterine and umbilical artery Doppler at 28 weeks for predicting adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with abnormal uterine artery Doppler findings in the early second trimester. Prenat Diagn35: 294298. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 58. (2002) ACOG practice bulletin. Diagnosis and management of preeclampsia and eclampsia. Number 33, January 2002. Obstet Gynecol99: 159167. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 59. ChaiworapongsaT, ChaemsaithongP, YeoL, RomeroR (2014) Pre-eclampsia part 1: current understanding of its pathophysiology. Nat Rev Nephrol10: 466480. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 60. RomeroR, KimYM, PacoraP, KimCJ, Benshalom-TiroshN, JaimanS,et al(2018) The frequency and type of placental histologic lesions in term pregnancies with normal outcome. J Perinat Med46: 613630. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 61. RedlineRW, HellerD, KeatingS, KingdomJ (2005) Placental diagnostic criteria and clinical correlation—a workshop report. Placenta26Suppl A: S114117.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 62. KhongTY, MooneyEE, ArielI, BalmusNC, BoydTK, BrundlerMA,et al(2016) Sampling and Definitions of Placental Lesions: Amsterdam Placental Workshop Group Consensus Statement. Arch Pathol Lab Med140: 698713. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 63. KorzeniewskiSJ, RomeroR, ChaiworapongsaT, ChaemsaithongP, KimCJ, KimYM,et al(2016) Maternal plasma angiogenic index-1 (placental growth factor/soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1) is a biomarker for the burden of placental lesions consistent with uteroplacental underperfusion: a longitudinal case-cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol214: 629.e621-629.e617.[Google Scholar]
  • 64. GoldL, AyersD, BertinoJ, BockC, BockA, BrodyEN,et al(2010) Aptamer-based multiplexed proteomic technology for biomarker discovery. PLoS One5: e15004[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 65. DaviesDR, GelinasAD, ZhangC, RohloffJC, CarterJD, O'ConnellD,et al(2012) Unique motifs and hydrophobic interactions shape the binding of modified DNA ligands to protein targets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A109: 1997119976. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 66. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. http://arxivorg/abs/14065823
  • 67. TarcaAL, ThanN. G., RomeroR. (2013) Methodological approach from the Best Overall Team in the sbv IMPROVER Diagnostic Signature Challenge. Systems Biomedicine1: 217227.[Google Scholar]
  • 68. TarcaAL, LauriaM, UngerM, BilalE, BoueS, Kumar DeyK,et al(2013) Strengths and limitations of microarray-based phenotype prediction: lessons learned from the IMPROVER Diagnostic Signature Challenge. Bioinformatics29: 28922899. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 69. DayarianA, RomeroR, WangZ, BiehlM, BilalE, HormozS,et al(2014) Predicting protein phosphorylation from gene expression: top methods from the IMPROVER Species Translation Challenge. Bioinformatics: 462470. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 70. SmythGK (2012)Limma: linear models for microarray dataIn: GentlemanR, CareyVJ, HuberW, IrizarryRA, DudoitS, editors. Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Solutions Using R and Bioconductor: Springer pp. 397420.
  • 71. GentlemanRC, CareyVJ, BatesDM, BolstadB, DettlingM, DudoitS,et al(2004) Bioconductor: open software development for computational biology and bioinformatics. Genome Biol5: R80[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 72. ErezO, RomeroR, MaymonE, ChaemsaithongP, DoneB, PacoraP,et al(2017) The prediction of late-onset preeclampsia: Results from a longitudinal proteomics study. PLoS One12: e0181468[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 73. MaglottD, OstellJ, PruittKD, TatusovaT (2005) Entrez Gene: gene-centered information at NCBI. Nucleic Acids Res33: D5458. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 74. AshburnerM, BallCA, BlakeJA, BotsteinD, ButlerH, CherryJM,et al(2000) Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet25: 2529. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 75. OgataH, GotoS, SatoK, FujibuchiW, BonoH, KanehisaM (1999) KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes. Nucleic Acids Res27: 2934. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 76. DraghiciS, KhatriP, TarcaAL, AminK, DoneA, VoichitaC,et al(2007) A systems biology approach for pathway level analysis. Genome Res17: 15371545. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 77. TarcaAL, DraghiciS, KhatriP, HassanSS, MittalP, KimJS,et al(2009) A novel signaling pathway impact analysis. Bioinformatics25: 7582. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 78. BobrowCS, HolmesRP, MuttukrishnaS, MohanA, GroomeN, MurphyDJ,et al(2002) Maternal serum activin A, inhibin A, and follistatin in pregnancies with appropriately grown and small-for-gestational-age fetuses classified by umbilical artery Doppler ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol186: 283287. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 79. MelchiorreK, LeslieK, PrefumoF, BhideA, ThilaganathanB (2009) First-trimester uterine artery Doppler indices in the prediction of small-for-gestational age pregnancy and intrauterine growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol33: 524529. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 80. KaragiannisG, AkolekarR, SarquisR, WrightD, NicolaidesKH (2011) Prediction of small-for-gestation neonates from biophysical and biochemical markers at 11–13 weeks. Fetal Diagn Ther29: 148154. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 81. CrovettoF, TriunfoS, CrispiF, Rodriguez-SuredaV, RomaE, DominguezC,et al(2016) First-trimester screening with specific algorithms for early- and late-onset fetal growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol48: 340348. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 82. ParryS, SciscioneA, HaasDM, GrobmanWA, IamsJD, MercerBM,et al(2017) Role of early second-trimester uterine artery Doppler screening to predict small-for-gestational-age babies in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol: 3074930744.[Google Scholar]
  • 83. SpencerK, CowansNJ, MolinaF, KaganKO, NicolaidesKH (2008) First-trimester ultrasound and biochemical markers of aneuploidy and the prediction of preterm or early preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol31: 147152. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 84. AntsaklisP, DaskalakisG, PilalisA, PapantoniouN, MesogitisS, AntsaklisA (2011) The role of cervical length measurement at 11–14 weeks for the prediction of preterm delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med24: 465470. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 85. BakalisSP, PoonLC, VaynaAM, PafilisI, NicolaidesKH (2012) C-reactive protein at 11–13 weeks' gestation in spontaneous early preterm delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med25: 24752478. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 86. GervasiMT, RomeroR, BracalenteG, ErezO, DongZ, HassanSS,et al(2012) Midtrimester amniotic fluid concentrations of interleukin-6 and interferon-gamma-inducible protein-10: evidence for heterogeneity of intra-amniotic inflammation and associations with spontaneous early (<32 weeks) and late (>32 weeks) preterm delivery. J Perinat Med40: 329343. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 87. GrecoE, GuptaR, SyngelakiA, PoonLC, NicolaidesKH (2012) First-trimester screening for spontaneous preterm delivery with maternal characteristics and cervical length. Fetal Diagn Ther31: 154161. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 88. GoetzingerKR, CahillAG, KemnaJ, OdiboL, MaconesGA, OdiboAO (2012) First-trimester prediction of preterm birth using ADAM12, PAPP-A, uterine artery Doppler, and maternal characteristics. Prenat Diagn32: 10021007. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 89. StoutMJ, GoetzingerKR, TuuliMG, CahillAG, MaconesGA, OdiboAO (2013) First trimester serum analytes, maternal characteristics and ultrasound markers to predict pregnancies at risk for preterm birth. Placenta34: 1419. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 90. Conde-AgudeloA, RomeroR (2014) Prediction of preterm birth in twin gestations using biophysical and biochemical tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol211: 583595. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 91. Parra-CorderoM, Sepulveda-MartinezA, RencoretG, ValdesE, PedrazaD, MunozH (2014) Is there a role for cervical assessment and uterine artery Doppler in the first trimester of pregnancy as a screening test for spontaneous preterm delivery?Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol43: 291296. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 92. EkinA, GezerC, KulhanG, AvciME, TanerCE (2015) Can platelet count and mean platelet volume during the first trimester of pregnancy predict preterm premature rupture of membranes? J Obstet Gynaecol Res41: 2328. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 93. QuezadaMS, FranciscoC, Dumitrascu-BirisD, NicolaidesKH, PoonLC (2015) Fetal fraction of cell-free DNA in maternal plasma in the prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol45: 101105. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 94. KimSM, RomeroR, LeeJ, ChaemsaithongP, LeeMW, ChaiyasitN,et al(2016) About one-half of early spontaneous preterm deliveries can be identified by a rapid matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8) bedside test at the time of mid-trimester genetic amniocentesis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med29: 24142422. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 95. ChaiworapongsaT, RomeroR, KorzeniewskiSJ, KusanovicJP, SotoE, LamJ,et al(2013) Maternal plasma concentrations of angiogenic/antiangiogenic factors in the third trimester of pregnancy to identify the patient at risk for stillbirth at or near term and severe late preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol208: 287.e281-287.e215.[Google Scholar]
  • 96. Conde-AgudeloA, BirdS, KennedySH, VillarJ, PapageorghiouAT (2015) First- and second-trimester tests to predict stillbirth in unselected pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bjog122: 4155. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 97. AkolekarR, MachucaM, MendesM, PaschosV, NicolaidesKH (2016) Prediction of stillbirth from placental growth factor at 11–13 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol48: 618623. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 98. AupontJE, AkolekarR, IllianA, NeonakisS, NicolaidesKH (2016) Prediction of stillbirth from placental growth factor at 19–24 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol48: 631635. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 99. FamiliariA, ScalaC, MorlandoM, BhideA, KhalilA, ThilaganathanB (2016) Mid-pregnancy fetal growth, uteroplacental Doppler indices and maternal demographic characteristics: role in prediction of stillbirth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand95: 13131318. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 100. AkolekarR, TokunakaM, OrtegaN, SyngelakiA, NicolaidesKH (2016) Prediction of stillbirth from maternal factors, fetal biometry and uterine artery Doppler at 19–24 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol48: 624630. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 101. KayodeGA, GrobbeeDE, Amoakoh-ColemanM, AdelekeIT, AnsahE, de GrootJA,et al(2016) Predicting stillbirth in a low resource setting. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth16: 274[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 102. KhalilA, Morales-RoselloJ, TownsendR, MorlandoM, PapageorghiouA, BhideA,et al(2016) Value of third-trimester cerebroplacental ratio and uterine artery Doppler indices as predictors of stillbirth and perinatal loss. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol47: 7480. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 103. MastrodimaS, AkolekarR, YerlikayaG, TzelepisT, NicolaidesKH (2016) Prediction of stillbirth from biochemical and biophysical markers at 11–13 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol48: 613617. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 104. YerlikayaG, AkolekarR, McPhersonK, SyngelakiA, NicolaidesKH (2016) Prediction of stillbirth from maternal demographic and pregnancy characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol48: 607612. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 105. TrudellAS, TuuliMG, ColditzGA, MaconesGA, OdiboAO (2017) A stillbirth calculator: Development and internal validation of a clinical prediction model to quantify stillbirth risk. PLoS One12: e0173461[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 106. MadazliR, KuseyriogluB, UzunH, UludagS, OcakV (2005) Prediction of preeclampsia with maternal mid-trimester placental growth factor, activin A, fibronectin and uterine artery Doppler velocimetry. Int J Gynaecol Obstet89: 251257. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 107. PoonLC, KaragiannisG, LealA, RomeroXC, NicolaidesKH (2009) Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy: screening by uterine artery Doppler imaging and blood pressure at 11–13 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol34: 497502. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 108. Conde-AgudeloA, RomeroR, JamesMR (2015)Tests to Predict PreeclampsiaIn: TaylorRN, RobertsJM, CunninghamFG, LindheimerMD, ChesleyLC, editors. Chesley's Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. Fourth Edition ed. Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier/AP, Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier,. pp. 221251.
  • 109. YliniemiA, MakikallioK, KorpimakiT, KouruH, MarttalaJ, RyynanenM (2015) Combination of PAPPA, fhCGbeta, AFP, PlGF, sTNFR1, and Maternal Characteristics in Prediction of Early-onset Preeclampsia. Clin Med Insights Reprod Health9: 1320. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 110. BrunelliVB, PrefumoF (2015) Quality of first trimester risk prediction models for pre-eclampsia: a systematic review. Bjog122: 904914. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 111. ScazzocchioE, CrovettoF, TriunfoS, GratacosE, FiguerasF (2017) Validation of a first-trimester screening model for pre-eclampsia in an unselected population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol49: 188193. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 112. GuizaniM, ValsamisJ, DutemeyerV, KangX, CeccotiV, KhalifeJ,et al(2017) First-Trimester Combined Multimarker Prospective Study for the Detection of Pregnancies at a High Risk of Developing Preeclampsia Using the Fetal Medicine Foundation-Algorithm. Fetal Diagn Ther: 18.[Google Scholar]
  • 113. ParkHJ, KimSH, JungYW, ShimSS, KimJY, ChoYK,et al(2014) Screening models using multiple markers for early detection of late-onset preeclampsia in low-risk pregnancy. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth14: 35[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 114. SibaiBM, GordonT, ThomE, CaritisSN, KlebanoffM, McNellisD,et al(1995) Risk factors for preeclampsia in healthy nulliparous women: a prospective multicenter study. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Network of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units. Am J Obstet Gynecol172: 642648. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 115. SibaiBM, EwellM, LevineRJ, KlebanoffMA, EsterlitzJ, CatalanoPM,et al(1997) Risk factors associated with preeclampsia in healthy nulliparous women. The Calcium for Preeclampsia Prevention (CPEP) Study Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol177: 10031010. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 116. PoonLC, KametasNA, ChelemenT, LealA, NicolaidesKH (2010) Maternal risk factors for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy: a multivariate approach. J Hum Hypertens24: 104110. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 117. WrightD, SyngelakiA, AkolekarR, PoonLC, NicolaidesKH (2015) Competing risks model in screening for preeclampsia by maternal characteristics and medical history. Am J Obstet Gynecol213: 62.e61-10.[Google Scholar]
  • 118. RochaRS, AlvesJA, MaiaEHMSB, Araujo JuniorE, PeixotoAB, SantanaEF,et al(2017) Simple approach based on maternal characteristics and mean arterial pressure for the prediction of preeclampsia in the first trimester of pregnancy. J Perinat Med.[Google Scholar]
  • 119. CrispiF, DominguezC, LlurbaE, Martin-GallanP, CaberoL, GratacosE (2006) Placental angiogenic growth factors and uterine artery Doppler findings for characterization of different subsets in preeclampsia and in isolated intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol195: 201207. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 120. KucS, WortelboerEJ, van RijnBB, FranxA, VisserGH, SchielenPC (2011) Evaluation of 7 serum biomarkers and uterine artery Doppler ultrasound for first-trimester prediction of preeclampsia: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv66: 225239. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 121. TobinagaCM, TorloniMR, Gueuvoghlanian-SilvaBY, PendeloskiKP, AkitaPA, SassN,et al(2014) Angiogenic factors and uterine Doppler velocimetry in early- and late-onset preeclampsia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand93: 469476. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 122. SeravalliV, GrimpelYI, MeiriH, BlitzerM, BaschatAA (2016) Relationship between first-trimester serum placental protein-13 and maternal characteristics, placental Doppler studies and pregnancy outcome. J Perinat Med44: 543549. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 123. SpencerK, YuCK, CowansNJ, OtigbahC, NicolaidesKH (2005) Prediction of pregnancy complications by first-trimester maternal serum PAPP-A and free beta-hCG and with second-trimester uterine artery Doppler. Prenat Diagn25: 949953. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 124. SpencerK, YuCK, SavvidouM, PapageorghiouAT, NicolaidesKH (2006) Prediction of pre-eclampsia by uterine artery Doppler ultrasonography and maternal serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A, free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin, activin A and inhibin A at 22 + 0 to 24 + 6 weeks' gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol27: 658663. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 125. PoonLC, StratievaV, PirasS, PiriS, NicolaidesKH (2010) Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy: combined screening by uterine artery Doppler, blood pressure and serum PAPP-A at 11–13 weeks. Prenat Diagn30: 216223. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 126. AyE, KavakZN, ElterK, GokaslanH, PekinT (2005) Screening for pre-eclampsia by using maternal serum inhibin A, activin A, human chorionic gonadotropin, unconjugated estriol, and alpha-fetoprotein levels and uterine artery Doppler in the second trimester of pregnancy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol45: 283288. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 127. AkolekarR, MinekawaR, VedutaA, RomeroXC, NicolaidesKH (2009) Maternal plasma inhibin A at 11–13 weeks of gestation in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Prenat Diagn29: 753760. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 128. YuJ, ShixiaCZ, WuY, DuanT (2011) Inhibin A, activin A, placental growth factor and uterine artery Doppler pulsatility index in the prediction of pre-eclampsia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol37: 528533. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 129. LevineRJ, MaynardSE, QianC, LimKH, EnglandLJ, YuKF,et al(2004) Circulating angiogenic factors and the risk of preeclampsia. N Engl J Med350: 672683. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 130. MooreAG, YoungH, KellerJM, OjoLR, YanJ, SimasTA,et al(2012) Angiogenic biomarkers for prediction of maternal and neonatal complications in suspected preeclampsia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med25: 26512657. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 131. VillaPM, HamalainenE, MakiA, RaikkonenK, PesonenAK, TaipaleP,et al(2013) Vasoactive agents for the prediction of early- and late-onset preeclampsia in a high-risk cohort. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth13: 110[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 132. AllenRE, RogozinskaE, CleverlyK, AquilinaJ, ThangaratinamS (2014) Abnormal blood biomarkers in early pregnancy are associated with preeclampsia: a meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol182: 194201. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 133. WataganaraT, PratumvinitB, LahfahroengronP, PooliamJ, TalungchitP, LeetheeragulJ,et al(2017) Circulating soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 and placental growth factor from 10 to 40 weeks' pregnancy in normotensive women. J Perinat Med45: 895901. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 134. LuoQ, HanX (2017) Second-trimester maternal serum markers in the prediction of preeclampsia. J Perinat Med45: 809816. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 135. WikstromAK, LarssonA, ErikssonUJ, NashP, Norden-LindebergS, OlovssonM (2007) Placental growth factor and soluble FMS-like tyrosine kinase-1 in early-onset and late-onset preeclampsia. Obstet Gynecol109: 13681374. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 136. KurtogluE, AvciB, KokcuA, CelikH, Cengiz DuraM, MalatyaliogluE,et al(2016) Serum VEGF and PGF may be significant markers in prediction of severity of preeclampsia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med29: 19871992. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 137. TsiakkasA, CazacuR, WrightA, WrightD, NicolaidesKH (2016) Maternal serum placental growth factor at 12, 22, 32 and 36 weeks' gestation in screening for pre-eclampsia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol47: 472477. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 138. TsatsarisV, GoffinF, MunautC, BrichantJF, PignonMR, NoelA,et al(2003) Overexpression of the soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor in preeclamptic patients: pathophysiological consequences. J Clin Endocrinol Metab88: 55555563. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 139. KogaK, OsugaY, YoshinoO, HirotaY, RuimengX, HirataT,et al(2003) Elevated serum soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (sVEGFR-1) levels in women with preeclampsia. J Clin Endocrinol Metab88: 23482351. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 140. ChaiworapongsaT, RomeroR, EspinozaJ, BujoldE, Mee KimY, GoncalvesLF,et al(2004) Evidence supporting a role for blockade of the vascular endothelial growth factor system in the pathophysiology of preeclampsia. Young Investigator Award. Am J Obstet Gynecol190: 15411547; discussion 1547–1550. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 141. ChungJY, SongY, WangY, MagnessRR, ZhengJ (2004) Differential expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), endocrine gland derived-VEGF, and VEGF receptors in human placentas from normal and preeclamptic pregnancies. J Clin Endocrinol Metab89: 24842490. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 142. ChaiworapongsaT, RomeroR, KimYM, KimGJ, KimMR, EspinozaJ,et al(2005) Plasma soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 concentration is elevated prior to the clinical diagnosis of pre-eclampsia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med17: 318. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 143. LevineRJ, LamC, QianC, YuKF, MaynardSE, SachsBP,et al(2006) Soluble endoglin and other circulating antiangiogenic factors in preeclampsia. N Engl J Med355: 9921005. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 144. StepanH, GeipelA, SchwarzF, KramerT, WesselN, FaberR (2008) Circulatory soluble endoglin and its predictive value for preeclampsia in second-trimester pregnancies with abnormal uterine perfusion. Am J Obstet Gynecol198: 175 e171-176.[Google Scholar]
  • 145. ChaiworapongsaT, RomeroR, KusanovicJP, MittalP, KimSK, GotschF,et al(2010) Plasma soluble endoglin concentration in pre-eclampsia is associated with an increased impedance to flow in the maternal and fetal circulations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol35: 155162. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 146. FoidartJM, MunautC, ChantraineF, AkolekarR, NicolaidesKH (2010) Maternal plasma soluble endoglin at 11–13 weeks' gestation in pre-eclampsia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol35: 680687. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 147. RanaS, CerdeiraAS, WengerJ, SalahuddinS, LimKH, RalstonSJ,et al(2012) Plasma concentrations of soluble endoglin versus standard evaluation in patients with suspected preeclampsia. PLoS One7: e48259[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 148. LaiJ, SyngelakiA, PoonLC, NucciM, NicolaidesKH (2013) Maternal serum soluble endoglin at 30–33 weeks in the prediction of preeclampsia. Fetal Diagn Ther33: 149155. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 149. De VivoA, BavieraG, GiordanoD, TodarelloG, CorradoF, D'AnnaR (2008) Endoglin, PlGF and sFlt-1 as markers for predicting pre-eclampsia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand87: 837842. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 150. BaumannMU, BersingerNA, MohauptMG, RaioL, GerberS, SurbekDV (2008) First-trimester serum levels of soluble endoglin and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 as first-trimester markers for late-onset preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol199: 266.e261-266.[Google Scholar]
  • 151. KusanovicJP, RomeroR, ChaiworapongsaT, ErezO, MittalP, VaisbuchE,et al(2009) A prospective cohort study of the value of maternal plasma concentrations of angiogenic and anti-angiogenic factors in early pregnancy and midtrimester in the identification of patients destined to develop preeclampsia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med22: 10211038. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 152. Cindrova-DaviesT, SandersDA, BurtonGJ, Charnock-JonesDS (2011) Soluble FLT1 sensitizes endothelial cells to inflammatory cytokines by antagonizing VEGF receptor-mediated signalling. Cardiovasc Res89: 671679. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 153. AggarwalPK, ChandelN, JainV, JhaV (2012) The relationship between circulating endothelin-1, soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 and soluble endoglin in preeclampsia. J Hum Hypertens26: 236241. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 154. CimN, KurdogluM, EgeS, YorukI, YamanG, YildizhanR (2016) An analysis on the roles of angiogenesis-related factors including serum vitamin D, soluble endoglin (sEng), soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt1), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in the diagnosis and severity of late-onset preeclampsia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med: 16.[Google Scholar]
  • 155. PeralesA, DelgadoJL, de la CalleM, Garcia-HernandezJA, EscuderoAI, CampillosJM,et al(2017) sFlt-1/PlGF for prediction of early-onset pre-eclampsia: STEPS (Study of Early Pre-eclampsia in Spain). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol50: 373382. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 156. O'GormanN, NicolaidesKH, PoonLC (2016) The use of ultrasound and other markers for early detection of preeclampsia. Womens Health (Lond)12: 199207.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 157. RomeroR, KuivaniemiH, TrompG (2002) Functional genomics and proteomics in term and preterm parturition. J Clin Endocrinol Metab87: 24312434. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 158. RomeroR, EspinozaJ, GotschF, KusanovicJP, FrielLA, ErezO,et al(2006) The use of high-dimensional biology (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics) to understand the preterm parturition syndrome. Bjog113Suppl 3: 118135.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 159. RomeroR, TrompG (2006) High-dimensional biology in obstetrics and gynecology: functional genomics in microarray studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol195: 360363. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 160. BlankleyRT, RobinsonNJ, AplinJD, CrockerIP, GaskellSJ, WhettonAD,et al(2010) A gel-free quantitative proteomics analysis of factors released from hypoxic-conditioned placentae. Reprod Sci17: 247257. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 161. CoxJ, MannM (2011) Quantitative, high-resolution proteomics for data-driven systems biology. Annu Rev Biochem80: 273299. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 162. KleinJ, Buffin-MeyerB, MullenW, CartyDM, DellesC, VlahouA,et al(2014) Clinical proteomics in obstetrics and neonatology. Expert Rev Proteomics11: 7589. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 163. Hernandez-NunezJ, Valdes-YongM (2015) Utility of proteomics in obstetric disorders: a review. Int J Womens Health7: 385391. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 164. EdlowAG, SlonimDK, WickHC, HuiL, BianchiDW (2015) The pathway not taken: understanding 'omics data in the perinatal context. Am J Obstet Gynecol213: 59.e51-172.[Google Scholar]
  • 165. KolialexiA, MavreliD, PapantoniouN (2017) Proteomics for early prenatal screening of pregnancy complications: a 2017 perspective. Expert Rev Proteomics14: 113115. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 166. NejatizadehA, StobdanT, MalhotraN, PashaMA (2008) The genetic aspects of pre-eclampsia: achievements and limitations. Biochem Genet46: 451479. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 167. JohnsonM, BrenneckeS, IversenAC, EastC, OlsenG, KentJ,et al(2012) OS046. Genome-wide association scans identify novel maternalsusceptibility loci for preeclampsia. Pregnancy Hypertens2: 202.[Google Scholar]
  • 168. ChaiworapongsaT, RomeroR, WhittenA, TarcaAL, BhattiG, DraghiciS,et al(2013) Differences and similarities in the transcriptional profile of peripheral whole blood in early and late-onset preeclampsia: insights into the molecular basis of the phenotype of preeclampsiaa. J Perinat Med41: 485504. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 169. XuP, ZhaoY, LiuM, WangY, WangH, LiYX,et al(2014) Variations of microRNAs in human placentas and plasma from preeclamptic pregnancy. Hypertension63: 12761284. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 170. YongHE, MeltonPE, JohnsonMP, FreedKA, KalionisB, MurthiP,et al(2015) Genome-wide transcriptome directed pathway analysis of maternal pre-eclampsia susceptibility genes. PLoS One10: e0128230[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 171. SoberS, ReimanM, KikasT, RullK, InnoR, VaasP,et al(2015) Extensive shift in placental transcriptome profile in preeclampsia and placental origin of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Sci Rep5: 13336[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 172. WhiteheadCL, WalkerSP, TongS (2016) Measuring circulating placental RNAs to non-invasively assess the placental transcriptome and to predict pregnancy complications. Prenat Diagn36: 9971008. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 173. LuoS, CaoN, TangY, GuW (2017) Identification of key microRNAs and genes in preeclampsia by bioinformatics analysis. PLoS One12: e0178549[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 174. Ashar-PatelA, KaymazY, RajakumarA, BaileyJA, KarumanchiSA, MooreMJ (2017) FLT1 and transcriptome-wide polyadenylation site (PAS) analysis in preeclampsia. Sci Rep7: 12139[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 175. ThanNG, RomeroR, TarcaAL, KekesiKA, XuY, XuZ,et al(2018) Integrated Systems Biology Approach Identifies Novel Maternal and Placental Pathways of Preeclampsia. Front Immunol9: 1661[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 176. KollaV, JenoP, MoesS, LapaireO, HoesliI, HahnS (2012) Quantitative proteomic (iTRAQ) analysis of 1st trimester maternal plasma samples in pregnancies at risk for preeclampsia. J Biomed Biotechnol2012: 305964[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 177. MyersJE, TuyttenR, ThomasG, LaroyW, KasK, VanpouckeG,et al(2013) Integrated proteomics pipeline yields novel biomarkers for predicting preeclampsia. Hypertension61: 12811288. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 178. LawKP, HanTL, TongC, BakerPN (2015) Mass spectrometry-based proteomics for pre-eclampsia and preterm birth. Int J Mol Sci16: 1095210985. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 179. FoundsS, ZengX, LykinsD, RobertsJM (2015) Developing Potential Candidates of Preclinical Preeclampsia. Int J Mol Sci16: 2720827227. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 180. LuQ, LiuC, LiuY, ZhangN, DengH, ZhangZ (2016) Serum markers of pre-eclampsia identified on proteomics. J Obstet Gynaecol Res42: 11111118. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 181. JinX, XuZ, CaoJ, ShaoP, ZhouM, QinZ,et al(2017) Proteomics analysis of human placenta reveals glutathione metabolism dysfunction as the underlying pathogenesis for preeclampsia. Biochim Biophys Acta1865: 12071214.[Google Scholar]
  • 182. QiWH, ZhengMY, LiC, XuL, XuJE (2017) Screening of differential proteins of placenta tissues in patients with pre-eclampsia by iTRAQ proteomics techniques. Minerva Med108: 389395. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 183. LynchAM, WagnerBD, DeterdingRR, GiclasPC, GibbsRS, JanoffEN,et al(2015) The relationship of circulating proteins in early pregnancy with preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol214: 517.e511-518.[Google Scholar]
  • 184. MyersJ, MacleodM, ReedB, HarrisN, MiresG, BakerP (2004) Use of proteomic patterns as a novel screening tool in pre-eclampsia. J Obstet Gynaecol24: 873874. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 185. WebsterRP, MyattL (2007) Elucidation of the molecular mechanisms of preeclampsia using proteomic technologies. Proteomics Clin Appl1: 11471155. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 186. BakerPN, MyersJE (2009) Preeclamptic toxemia: a disease ripe for proteomic discovery. Expert Rev Proteomics6: 107110. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 187. CartyDM, SchifferE, DellesC (2013) Proteomics in hypertension. J Hum Hypertens27: 211216. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 188. Bahado-SinghRO, AkolekarR, MandalR, DongE, XiaJ, KrugerM,et al(2012) Metabolomics and first-trimester prediction of early-onset preeclampsia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med25: 18401847. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 189. KucS, KosterMP, PenningsJL, HankemeierT, BergerR, HarmsAC,et al(2014) Metabolomics profiling for identification of novel potential markers in early prediction of preeclampsia. PLoS One9: e98540[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 190. AustdalM, TangerasLH, SkrastadRB, SalvesenK, AustgulenR, IversenAC,et al(2015) First Trimester Urine and Serum Metabolomics for Prediction of Preeclampsia and Gestational Hypertension: A Prospective Screening Study. Int J Mol Sci16: 2152021538. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 191. KosterMP, VreekenRJ, HarmsAC, DaneAD, KucS, SchielenPC,et al(2015) First-Trimester Serum Acylcarnitine Levels to Predict Preeclampsia: A Metabolomics Approach. Dis Markers2015: 857108[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 192. BentonSJ, LyC, VukovicS, BainbridgeSA (2016) Andree Gruslin award lecture: Metabolomics as an important modality to better understand preeclampsia. Placenta: 19.[Google Scholar]
  • 193. de GrootCJ, GuzelC, Steegers-TheunissenRP, de MaatM, DerkxP, RoesEM,et al(2007) Specific peptides identified by mass spectrometry in placental tissue from pregnancies complicated by early onset preeclampsia attained by laser capture dissection. Proteomics Clin Appl1: 325335. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 194. HamamuraK, NonakaD, IshikawaH, BanzaiM, YanagidaM, NojimaM,et al(2016) Simple quantitation for potential serum disease biomarker peptides, primarily identified by a peptidomics approach in the serum with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Ann Clin Biochem53: 8596. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 195. KononikhinAS, StarodubtsevaNL, BugrovaAE, ShirokovaVA, ChagovetsVV, IndeykinaMI,et al(2016) An untargeted approach for the analysis of the urine peptidome of women with preeclampsia. J Proteomics149: 3843. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 196. KediaK, SmithSF, WrightAH, BarnesJM, TolleyHD, EsplinMS,et al(2016) Global "omics" evaluation of human placental responses to preeclamptic conditions. Am J Obstet Gynecol215: 238.e231-238.e220.[Google Scholar]
  • 197. DaiX, SongX, RuiC, MengL, XueX, DingH,et al(2017) Peptidome Analysis of Human Serum From Normal and Preeclamptic Pregnancies. J Cell Biochem: 18.[Google Scholar]
  • 198. QianY, ZhangL, RuiC, DingH, MaoP, RuanH,et al(2017) Peptidome analysis of amniotic fluid from pregnancies with preeclampsia. Mol Med Rep: 73377344. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 199. AnandS, YoungS, EsplinMS, PeadenB, TolleyHD, PorterTF,et al(2016) Detection and confirmation of serum lipid biomarkers for preeclampsia using direct infusion mass spectrometry. J Lipid Res57: 687696. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 200. BrownSH, EatherSR, FreemanDJ, MeyerBJ, MitchellTW (2016) A Lipidomic Analysis of Placenta in Preeclampsia: Evidence for Lipid Storage. PLoS One11: e0163972[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 201. WatanabeH, HamadaH, YamadaN, SohdaS, Yamakawa-KobayashiK, YoshikawaH,et al(2004) Proteome analysis reveals elevated serum levels of clusterin in patients with preeclampsia. Proteomics4: 537543. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 202. BlankleyRT, GaskellSJ, WhettonAD, DiveC, BakerPN, MyersJE (2009) A proof-of-principle gel-free proteomics strategy for the identification of predictive biomarkers for the onset of pre-eclampsia. Bjog116: 14731480. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 203. AuerJ, CamoinL, GuillonneauF, RigourdV, ChelbiST, LeducM,et al(2010) Serum profile in preeclampsia and intra-uterine growth restriction revealed by iTRAQ technology. J Proteomics73: 10041017. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 204. RasanenJ, GirsenA, LuX, LapidusJA, StandleyM, ReddyA,et al(2010) Comprehensive maternal serum proteomic profiles of preclinical and clinical preeclampsia. J Proteome Res9: 42744281. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 205. LiuC, ZhangN, YuH, ChenY, LiangY, DengH,et al(2011) Proteomic analysis of human serum for finding pathogenic factors and potential biomarkers in preeclampsia. Placenta32: 168174. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 206. HsuTY, HsiehTT, YangKD, TsaiCC, OuCY, ChengBH,et al(2015) Proteomic profiling reveals alpha1-antitrypsin, alpha1-microglobulin, and clusterin as preeclampsia-related serum proteins in pregnant women. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol54: 499504. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 207. KolialexiA, GourgiotisD, DaskalakisG, MarmarinosA, LykoudiA, MavreliD,et al(2015) Validation of serum biomarkers derived from proteomic analysis for the early screening of preeclampsia. Dis Markers2015: 121848[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 208. AnandS, Bench AlvarezTM, JohnsonWE, EsplinMS, MerrellK, PorterTF,et al(2015) Serum biomarkers predictive of pre-eclampsia. Biomark Med9: 563575. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 209. KimSM, ChoBK, KangMJ, NorwitzER, LeeSM, LeeJ,et al(2016) Expression changes of proteins associated with the development of preeclampsia in maternal plasma: A case-control study. Proteomics16: 15811589. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 210. KolialexiA, TsangarisGT, SifakisS, GourgiotisD, KatsafadouA, LykoudiA,et al(2017) Plasma biomarkers for the identification of women at risk for early-onset preeclampsia. Expert Rev Proteomics14: 269276. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 211. ChenG, ZhangY, JinX, ZhangL, ZhouY, NiuJ,et al(2011) Urinary proteomics analysis for renal injury in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with iTRAQ labeling and LC-MS/MS. Proteomics Clin Appl5: 300310. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 212. LeeSM, ParkJS, NorwitzER, KimSM, KimBJ, ParkCW,et al(2011) Characterization of discriminatory urinary proteomic biomarkers for severe preeclampsia using SELDI-TOF mass spectrometry. J Perinat Med39: 391396. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 213. KolialexiA, MavreliD, TountaG, MavrouA, PapantoniouN (2015) Urine proteomic studies in preeclampsia. Proteomics Clin Appl9: 501506. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 214. VascottoC, SalzanoAM, D'AmbrosioC, FruscalzoA, MarchesoniD, di LoretoC,et al(2007) Oxidized transthyretin in amniotic fluid as an early marker of preeclampsia. J Proteome Res6: 160170. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 215. ParkJS, OhKJ, NorwitzER, HanJS, ChoiHJ, SeongHS,et al(2008) Identification of proteomic biomarkers of preeclampsia in amniotic fluid using SELDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Reprod Sci15: 457468. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 216. WebsterRP, PitzerBA, RobertsVH, BrockmanD, MyattL (2007) Differences in the proteome profile in placenta from normal term and preeclamptic preterm pregnancies. Proteomics Clin Appl1: 446456. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 217. SunLZ, YangNN, DeW, XiaoYS (2007) Proteomic analysis of proteins differentially expressed in preeclamptic trophoblasts. Gynecol Obstet Invest64: 1723. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 218. KimYN, KimHK, WardaM, KimN, ParkWS, Prince AdelB,et al(2007) Toward a better understanding of preeclampsia: Comparative proteomic analysis of preeclamptic placentas. Proteomics Clin Appl1: 16251636. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 219. JinH, MaKD, HuR, ChenY, YangF, YaoJ,et al(2008) Analysis of expression and comparative profile of normal placental tissue proteins and those in preeclampsia patients using proteomic approaches. Anal Chim Acta629: 158164. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 220. Gharesi-FardB, ZolghadriJ, Kamali-SarvestaniE (2010) Proteome differences of placenta between pre-eclampsia and normal pregnancy. Placenta31: 121125. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 221. CentlowM, HanssonSR, WelinderC (2010) Differential proteome analysis of the preeclamptic placenta using optimized protein extraction. J Biomed Biotechnol2010: 458748[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 222. ShinJK, BaekJC, KangMY, ParkJK, LeeSA, LeeJH,et al(2011) Proteomic analysis reveals an elevated expression of heat shock protein 27 in preeclamptic placentas. Gynecol Obstet Invest71: 151157. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 223. FengYL, ZhouCJ, LiXM, LiangXQ (2012) Alpha-1-antitrypsin acts as a preeclampsia-related protein: a proteomic study. Gynecol Obstet Invest73: 252259. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 224. EpineyM, RibauxP, ArboitP, IrionO, CohenM (2012) Comparative analysis of secreted proteins from normal and preeclamptic trophoblastic cells using proteomic approaches. J Proteomics75: 17711777. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 225. BaigS, KothandaramanN, ManikandanJ, RongL, EeKH, HillJ,et al(2014) Proteomic analysis of human placental syncytiotrophoblast microvesicles in preeclampsia. Clin Proteomics11: 40[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 226. MaK, JinH, HuR, XiongY, ZhouS, TingP,et al(2014) A proteomic analysis of placental trophoblastic cells in preeclampsia-eclampsia. Cell Biochem Biophys69: 247258. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 227. YangJI, KongTW, KimHS, KimHY (2015) The Proteomic Analysis of Human Placenta with Pre-eclampsia and Normal Pregnancy. J Korean Med Sci30: 770778. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 228. MaryS, KulkarniMJ, MalakarD, JoshiSR, MehendaleSS, GiriAP (2017) Placental Proteomics Provides Insights into Pathophysiology of Pre-Eclampsia and Predicts Possible Markers in Plasma. J Proteome Res16: 10501060. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 229. RomeroR, ErezO, MaymonE, ChaemsaithongP, XuZ, PacoraP,et al(2017) The maternal plasma proteome changes as a function of gestational age in normal pregnancy: a longitudinal study. Am J Obstet Gynecol217: 67.e61-67.e21.[Google Scholar]
  • 230. AghaeepourN, LehallierB, BacaQ, GanioEA, WongRJ, GhaemiMS,et al(2018) A proteomic clock of human pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol218: 347.e341-347.e314.[Google Scholar]
  • 231. VettrainoIM, RobyJ, TolleyT, ParksWC (1996) Collagenase-I, stromelysin-I, and matrilysin are expressed within the placenta during multiple stages of human pregnancy. Placenta17: 557563. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 232. WeissA, GoldmanS, ShalevE (2007) The matrix metalloproteinases (MMPS) in the decidua and fetal membranes. Front Biosci12: 649659. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 233. ReisterF, KingdomJC, RuckP, MarzuschK, HeylW, PauerU,et al(2006) Altered protease expression by periarterial trophoblast cells in severe early-onset preeclampsia with IUGR. J Perinat Med34: 272279. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 234. SmithSD, DunkCE, AplinJD, HarrisLK, JonesRL (2009) Evidence for immune cell involvement in decidual spiral arteriole remodeling in early human pregnancy. Am J Pathol174: 19591971. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 235. LiQ, ParkPW, WilsonCL, ParksWC (2002) Matrilysin shedding of syndecan-1 regulates chemokine mobilization and transepithelial efflux of neutrophils in acute lung injury. Cell111: 635646. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 236. Manon-JensenT, MulthauptHA, CouchmanJR (2013) Mapping of matrix metalloproteinase cleavage sites on syndecan-1 and syndecan-4 ectodomains. FEBS J280: 23202331. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 237. JokimaaV, InkiP, KujariH, HirvonenO, EkholmE, AnttilaL (1998) Expression of syndecan-1 in human placenta and decidua. Placenta19: 157163. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 238. SteppMA, Pal-GhoshS, TadvalkarG, Pajoohesh-GanjiA (2015) Syndecan-1 and Its Expanding List of Contacts. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle)4: 235249.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 239. TengYH, AquinoRS, ParkPW (2012) Molecular functions of syndecan-1 in disease. Matrix Biol31: 316. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 240. GandleyRE, AlthouseA, JeyabalanA, Bregand-WhiteJM, McGonigalS, MyerskiAC,et al(2016) Low Soluble Syndecan-1 Precedes Preeclampsia. PLoS One11: e0157608[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 241. Alici DavutogluE, Akkaya FiratA, OzelA, YilmazN, UzunI, Temel YukselI,et al(2018) Evaluation of maternal serum hypoxia inducible factor-1alpha, progranulin and syndecan-1 levels in pregnancies with early- and late-onset preeclampsia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med31: 19761982. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 242. JokimaaVI, KujariHP, EkholmEM, InkiPL, AnttilaL (2000) Placental expression of syndecan 1 is diminished in preeclampsia. Am J Obstet Gynecol183: 14951498. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 243. SzaboS, XuY, RomeroR, FuleT, KarasziK, BhattiG,et al(2013) Changes of placental syndecan-1 expression in preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome. Virchows Arch463: 445458. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 244. HalpertI, SiresUI, RobyJD, Potter-PerigoS, WightTN, ShapiroSD,et al(1996) Matrilysin is expressed by lipid-laden macrophages at sites of potential rupture in atherosclerotic lesions and localizes to areas of versican deposition, a proteoglycan substrate for the enzyme. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A93: 97489753. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 245. KatabuchiH, YihS, OhbaT, MatsuiK, TakahashiK, TakeyaM,et al(2003) Characterization of macrophages in the decidual atherotic spiral artery with special reference to the cytology of foam cells. Med Electron Microsc36: 253262. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 246. KimYM, ChaemsaithongP, RomeroR, ShamanM, KimCJ, KimJS,et al(2015) The frequency of acute atherosis in normal pregnancy and preterm labor, preeclampsia, small-for-gestational age, fetal death and midtrimester spontaneous abortion. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med28: 20012009. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 247. ElangbamCS, QuallsCWJr., DahlgrenRR (1997) Cell adhesion molecules—update. Vet Pathol34: 6173. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 248. TomerA (2004) Platelet activation as a marker for in vivo prothrombotic activity: detection by flow cytometry. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents18: 172177. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 249. TakagiJ, PetreBM, WalzT, SpringerTA (2002) Global conformational rearrangements in integrin extracellular domains in outside-in and inside-out signaling. Cell110: 599511. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 250. PytelaR, PierschbacherMD, GinsbergMH, PlowEF, RuoslahtiE (1986) Platelet membrane glycoprotein IIb/IIIa: member of a family of Arg-Gly-Asp—specific adhesion receptors. Science231: 15591562. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 251. JanesSL, GoodallAH (1994) Flow cytometric detection of circulating activated platelets and platelet hyper-responsiveness in pre-eclampsia and pregnancy. Clin Sci (Lond)86: 731739.[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 252. Hodivala-DilkeKM, McHughKP, TsakirisDA, RayburnH, CrowleyD, Ullman-CullereM,et al(1999) Beta3-integrin-deficient mice are a model for Glanzmann thrombasthenia showing placental defects and reduced survival. J Clin Invest103: 229238. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 253. Tronik-Le RouxD, RoullotV, PoujolC, KortulewskiT, NurdenP, MarguerieG (2000) Thrombasthenic mice generated by replacement of the integrin alpha(IIb) gene: demonstration that transcriptional activation of this megakaryocytic locus precedes lineage commitment. Blood96: 13991408. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 254. McKenzieME, MalininAI, BellCR, DzhanashviliA, HorowitzED, OshrineBR,et al(2003) Aspirin inhibits surface glycoprotein IIb/IIIa, P-selectin, CD63, and CD107a receptor expression on human platelets. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis14: 249253. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 255. LeFevreML (2014) Low-dose aspirin use for the prevention of morbidity and mortality from preeclampsia: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med161: 819826. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 256. ACOG American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Practice advisory on low-dose aspirin and prevention of preeclampsia: updated recommendations. Washington, DC: 2016. https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/News-Room/Practice-Advisories/Practice-Advisory-Low-Dose-Aspirin-and-Prevention-of-Preeclampsia-Updated-Recommendations.
  • 257. SeidlerAL, AskieL, RayJG (2018) Optimal aspirin dosing for preeclampsia prevention. Am J Obstet Gynecol219: 117118. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 258. ThanN, RomeroR, TarcaA, KekesiK, XuY, JuhaszK,et al(2017) Systems biology identifies key molecular networks and hub factors in placental pathways of preeclampsia. Reproductive Sciences, 24(1 Suppl), 278A.[Google Scholar]
  • 259. SpencerK, MacriJN, AitkenDA, ConnorJM (1992) Free beta-hCG as first-trimester marker for fetal trisomy. Lancet339: 1480.[Google Scholar]
  • 260. SpencerK (2000) Second-trimester prenatal screening for Down syndrome and the relationship of maternal serum biochemical markers to pregnancy complications with adverse outcome. Prenat Diagn20: 652656. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 261. KaganKO, WrightD, SpencerK, MolinaFS, NicolaidesKH (2008) First-trimester screening for trisomy 21 by free beta-human chorionic gonadotropin and pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A: impact of maternal and pregnancy characteristics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol31: 493502. [PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 262. ColosiE, D'AmbrosioV, PeritiE (2016) First trimester contingent screening for trisomies 21,18,13: is this model cost efficient and feasible in public health system?J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med: 113.[Google Scholar]
Collaboration tool especially designed for Life Science professionals.Drag-and-drop any entity to your messages.