Objective: To investigate possible differences between laboratory profiles of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. There are different of them available for COVID-19 diagnoses and surveillance, so this research was to evaluate the positive agreement the diagnostic methods. Methods: For symptomatic patients swab samples from nasal and oral mucosal were collected between first and second week after symptoms onset, to perform RT-PCR, blood samples were collected 7 days after to perform antibody detection test. For asymptomatic patients, only antibody detection was performed to confirm the infection. We investigated specific humoral immune response for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients and also analyzed the positivity index and kappa agreement between immunochromatographic and ELISA assays. Results: Most symptomatic patients presented negative RT-PCR with IgM and IgA detection. Symptomatic and asymptomatic patients have presented elevated IgM and IgA immunoglobulins, being this detection higher in symptomatic patients. The positivity index for immunochromatographic was higher than ELISA and there was no kappa agreement between IgM and IgA detection between these two methods. Conclusion: Symptomatic patients presented higher amounts of IgM and IgA than asymptomatic, suggesting a relation between antibody quantity and severity of disease. We verified no agreement between IgM and IgA detection, and observed higher positivity index for IMMUNO when compared to ELISA. The different kinetics may cause a variation in their detection. Also, many different virus proteins can be used as antigens in these methods, being able of altering their sensibility and specificity.

AimTo evaluate the gene expression of irisin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) and its possible involvement in the metabolic changes and obesity in this pathophysiological situation.MethodsPatients anthropometric data were obtained, as well as samples of blood were collected in the clinic of specialties from Faculty of Medicine of ABC. A list of healthy individuals CT (n=14) and DM2 patients (n=16) diagnosed for less than 10 years was obtained. The criteria for the diagnosis of DM2 were the one used by the American Diabetes Association (ADA). Volunteers filled in terms of consent, and all of them were greater than or equal to 21 years old. After collection, it was evaluated complete hemogram and biochemical parameters: glucose and glycated hemoglobin (A1C). The expression of molecular biomarker irisin in peripheral blood leukocytes was performed by RT‐qPCR technique. Results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and analyzed by the program GraphPad Prism® 6.0, using the Student's t‐test and Mann‐Whitney test. As for the analyzes of correlation, it was done the Spearman correlation test. The significance level was 5% (descriptive value *p<0.05).ResultsThe mean age of the patients studied was 51±15 years for the CT group (n=14) and 64±10 years for the DM2 (n=16). As for the biochemical parameters, the following results were obtained: glucose (CT 92±13, n=14 DM2 versus 143±40 mg/dL, n=16 *p<0.05); A1C (CT 5.6±0.5, n=14 DM2 versus 7.1±1.6%, n=16 *p<0.05); irisin gene expression in peripheral blood was obtained by the formula 2^‐ΔCT and values found in CT group were 8.506e‐006±1.412e‐005, n=6. The ones found in DM2 group were 0.02288± 0.08050 n=14, p=0.06. The correlation test between the expression of irisin versus Body Mass Index (BMI) in DM2 was r=0.5221, p=0.06. There was no correlation between the glucose levels and A1C with irisin expression.ConclusionDespite the preliminary findings, the data showed a tendency toward a positive correlation between the expression of irisin and BMI in diabetic patients. These data suggest that irisin is associated to possible changes in adiposity which happen in obesity associated to DM2.Support or Funding InformationFinancial Support: CAPES, CNPq.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

AimTo evaluate alterations due to the establishment of experimental diabetes mellitus (DM) alloxan‐induced in biochemical parameters and the expression of genes MCT1, MCT4, CD147 and HIF‐1α in different tissues and in the blood profile.MethodsWistar rats (120–180g) were conditioned at the FMABC bioterium in conditions of 12 hours light/dark, climate temperature (21 ± 2 °C) and ad libitum supply of water and food. Animals of the DM group were treated with Alloxan monohydrate (120 mg/kg) intraperitoneal (ip); the control group sham (NDS) received injections of sodium chloride 0,9% (ip). The glycemic values were measured weekly during the period of treatment through a commercial glycosimeter by puncturing of the caudal vein of the animal; animals with glycemia above ≥200 mg / dL were determined as diabetic. Evaluated the biochemical parameters: glycemia, blood creatinine and urea, and the expression of molecular biomarkers in the heart, brain, kidney and blood by the RT‐qPCR technique. Data was analyzed by GraphPad Prism® 6.0, statistical differences were observed by the Mann‐Whitney test and Student T test with an established significance level in 5% (descriptive value of p <0.05).ResultsThe biochemical parameters found were: glycemia (DM7 619.1 ± 140.7 * p <0.005, n = 10 vs NDS 192.5 ± 43.64, n = 4), blood creatinine (DM7 0.46 ± 0.05 * p <0.005, n = 10 vs NDS 0.40 ± 0.07, n = 4) and urea (DM7 96.7 ± 26.6 * p <0.005, n = 10 vs. NDS 46.5 ± 7.0, n = 4) these values follow the established standards for the diabetic profile in the present study. In the molecular analyzes an increase of CD147 in the brain was observed (DM7 26.72 ± 27.45, * p <0.005, n = 9 vs NDS 1,489 ± 1,648, n = 4). In the blood profile an enhancement in the expressions of all the genes studied in the animals with DM were found; MCT1 (DM7 3,739 ± 3,057 * p <0.005, n = 10 vs NDS 0.009745 ± 0.007489, n = 4); MCT4 (DM7 7.364 ± 7.3, * p <0.005 n = 10 vs NDS 0.06399 ± 0.04844, n = 3); CD147 (DM7 4,295 ± 4,424 * p <0.005, n = 10 vs NDS 0.2212 ± 0.01653, n = 4) and HIF‐1α (DM7 1,413 ± 1,087 * p <0.005, n = 10 vs NDS 0.003833 ± 0.003741, n = 4). A positive correlation between glucose and MCT1 in the blood profile (r = 0.8061, * p <0.05, n = 10) was also noted, Spearman test.ConclusionsPreliminary data demonstrate that even early DM promotes serious biochemical changes accompanied by modifications in the expression of genes involved with glycolytic metabolism and in the cellular hypoxia mechanism. Apparently, the brain is the first tissue affected by these changes.Support or Funding InformationCAPES and CNPqThis abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

AimThis study aimed to evaluate the potential diagnostic and/or prognostic value of VEGF and HIF 1α gene expressions in peripheral blood of patients with breast cancer under chemotherapy treatment.MethodsPeripheral blood samples and tumor biopsies were collected from 125 patients with breast cancer and from 25 healthy women (control). Blood samples were collected at diagnosis and after 3 and 6 months of the beginning of chemotherapy. Total RNA isolation was performed using TRIZol reagent. RNA was then converted to cDNA and the gene expression analysis was made by RT‐qPCR. Results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and analysed by GraphPad Prism® 6.0 using Mann‐Withney, Friedman and Spearman tests, with a significancy level established in 5% (value of p< 0,05).ResultsGene expression analysis showed an increase of HIF 1α gene expression in patients at diagnosis when compared to that of healthy women (Patients: 0.3362 ± 0.7729, n=34 vs Donors: 0.00212 ± 0.001509, n=25, *p<0.0001). Analysis showed that in patients HIF 1α and VEGF expression is higher in peripheral blood than tumor samples (blood: 0.1927 ± 0.4754, n=108 vs Tumor: 0.09498 ± 0.2141, n=91, *p<0.0001 for HIF 1α and blood: 0.001436 ± 0.002469, n=117, Tumor: 0.002364 ± 0.007736, n=91 and *p=0.0041 for VEGF). HIF 1α also showed a differential expression along treatment (at diagnosis: 0.1432 ± 0.2161, n=102; 3 months after chemotherapy: 0.2010 ± 0.3456, n=102 and 6 months after chemotherapy: 0.1657 ± 0.2150, n=102, *p=0.0021). This differential expression along treatment was also observed for VEGF expression (at diagnosis: 0.001314 ± 0.001780, n=112; 3 months after chemotherapy: 0.001891 ± 0.002446, n=112 and 6 months after chemotherapy: 0.001674 ± 0.002260, n=112, *p<0.0001). It was found a correlation between the gene expression levels of HIF 1α and VEGF in peripheral blood (r=05881, *p<0.0001) as well as in the tumor samples (r=0.2804, *p=0.0123).ConclusionsData suggest that HIF 1α could be a diagnosis marker since there's a significant increase in its expression in blood samples from breast cancer patients when compared to healthy women. It's also observed that there's a positive correlation between VEGF and HIF 1α gene expression in peripheral blood samples.Support or Funding InformationFinancing: CNPq (process number: 133505/2018‐9) and FAPESP (Process number: 2017/03558‐3). Associated author: Carlos Henrique Foncesca Peiró Association: ASBMB (Number: 64413).This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.