Benjamin W. Tero
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Benjamin W. Tero has a total of 8 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Andre Khalil
CompuMAINE Laboratory, Department of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering, University of Maine
1 shared publication - Caitlin P. S. Ellis
MaineHealth Institute for Research, Scarborough, ME 04074, USA
1 shared publication - Calvin P. Vary
MaineHealth Institute for Research, Center for Molecular Medicine, Scarborough, ME 04074, USA
1 shared publication - Christian Potts
Center for Molecular Medicine, MaineHealth Institute for Research, Scarborough, ME 04074, USA
1 shared publication - Joshua Hamilton
Graduate School of Biomedical Science and Engineering, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, USA
1 shared publication - Kimberly T. Malka
MaineHealth Institute for Research, Scarborough, ME 04074, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 25 October 2024
- Published by MDPI AG in Biomedicines
- Vol. 12 (11) , 2453
Cellular Characteristics and Protein Signatures of Human Adipose Tissues from Donors With or Without Advanced Coronary Artery Disease
Background/Objectives: Perivascular adipose tissue (PVAT) exerts a paracrine effect on blood vessels and our objective was to understand PVAT molecular signatures related to cardiovascular disease. Methods: We studied two groups: those undergoing mitral valve repair/replacement (VR, n = 16) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG, n = 38). VR donors did not have coronary artery disease, whereas CABG donors had advanced coronary artery disease. Clinical and tissue pathologies and proteomics from adipose tissue were assessed. Results: Donors undergoing VR had a lower body mass index (p = 0.01), HbA1C (p = 0.0023), and incidence of diabetes (p = 0.022) compared to CABG. VR donors were overall healthier, with higher cardiac function compared to CABG donors, based on ejection fraction. Although adipose histopathology between groups was not markedly different, PVAT had smaller and more adipocytes compared to subcutaneous adipose tissues. These differences were validated by whole specimen automated morphological analysis, and anisotropy analysis showed small (2.8–7.5 μm) and large (22.8–64.4 μm) scale differences between perivascular and subcutaneous adipose tissue from CABG donors, and small scale changes (2.8–7.5 μm) between perivascular and subcutaneous adipose tissue from VR donors. Distinct protein signatures in PVAT and subcutaneous adipose tissue include those involved in secretion, exosomes and vesicles, insulin resistance, and adipocyte identity. Comparing PVAT and subcutaneous adipose tissue from CABG donors, there were 82 significantly different proteins identified with log fold change ≥ 0.3 or ≤−0.3 (p < 0.05). Using this threshold, there were 36 differences when comparing PVAT and subcutaneous adipose tissue from VR donors, 58 differences when comparing PVAT from CABG or VR donors, and 55 when comparing subcutaneous adipose tissue from CABG vs. VR donors. Conclusions: Routine histopathology cannot differentiate between PVAT from donors with or without coronary artery disease, but multiscale anisotropy analysis discriminated between these populations. Our mass spectrometry analysis identified a cohort of proteins that distinguish between adipose depots, and are also associated with the presence or absence of coronary artery disease.
- 25 October 2024
- Published by MDPI AG in Biomedicines
- Vol. 12 (11) , 2453
Open AccessCellular Characteristics and Protein Signatures of Human Adipose Tissues from Donors With or Without Advanced Coronary Artery Disease
Background/Objectives: Perivascular adipose tissue (PVAT) exerts a paracrine effect on blood vessels and our objective was to understand PVAT molecular signatures related to cardiovascular disease. Methods: We studied two groups: those undergoing mitral valve repair/replacement (VR, n = 16) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG, n = 38). VR donors did not have coronary artery disease, whereas CABG donors had advanced coronary artery disease. Clinical and tissue pathologies and proteomics from adipose tissue were assessed. Results: Donors undergoing VR had a lower body mass index (p = 0.01), HbA1C (p = 0.0023), and incidence of diabetes (p = 0.022) compared to CABG. VR donors were overall healthier, with higher cardiac function compared to CABG donors, based on ejection fraction. Although adipose histopathology between groups was not markedly different, PVAT had smaller and more adipocytes compared to subcutaneous adipose tissues. These differences were validated by whole specimen automated morphological analysis, and anisotropy analysis showed small (2.8–7.5 μm) and large (22.8–64.4 μm) scale differences between perivascular and subcutaneous adipose tissue from CABG donors, and small scale changes (2.8–7.5 μm) between perivascular and subcutaneous adipose tissue from VR donors. Distinct protein signatures in PVAT and subcutaneous adipose tissue include those involved in secretion, exosomes and vesicles, insulin resistance, and adipocyte identity. Comparing PVAT and subcutaneous adipose tissue from CABG donors, there were 82 significantly different proteins identified with log fold change ≥ 0.3 or ≤−0.3 (p < 0.05). Using this threshold, there were 36 differences when comparing PVAT and subcutaneous adipose tissue from VR donors, 58 differences when comparing PVAT from CABG or VR donors, and 55 when comparing subcutaneous adipose tissue from CABG vs. VR donors. Conclusions: Routine histopathology cannot differentiate between PVAT from donors with or without coronary artery disease, but multiscale anisotropy analysis discriminated between these populations. Our mass spectrometry analysis identified a cohort of proteins that distinguish between adipose depots, and are also associated with the presence or absence of coronary artery disease.