English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Dear editor  We correspond in response to the article entitled, “Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of atherosclerosis using citrate-coated superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles: calcifying microvesicles as imaging target for plaque characterization” by Wagner et al.1 In this article, the authors have used a new term “calcifying microvesicles” for the first time in the literature. We think our commentary will highlight these calcifying microvesicles with the similar analogous structures already existing in nature. We hope our discussion will clear up many of those questions.  Scientific advances in imaging technology offer many enticing prospects, including detection of early events that accelerate the progression of inflammatory lesions and atherosclerotic plaques,2,3 which have been the subject of endless debate. These imaging modalities could be used to monitor how atherosclerosis changes over time, perhaps indicating the ability of medical therapy to modify the plaque structure.4 Most recently, Wagner et al1 devised an innovative, clinically relevant method that would further help to study the exact location, composition and inflammatory activity of progressive atherosclerotic lesions, a process that can occur slowly and ‘silently’ over time.  One of the most interesting results of this study is the identification of “calcifying microvesicles” – a term used for the first time in the literature. Such particles were significantly related to atherosclerosis and calcification.5,6 Once believed to be a passive degenerative disease, cardiovascular calcification is now increasingly recognized as an active inflammatory process.7,8 A number of microscopic features were reported in the plaque, most notably calcifying nanoparticles (CNPs),9 matrix vesicles,10 and microcalcification,11 however attempts to characterize these atherogenic mechanisms to particular etiology have failed, requiring further investigations. Subsequent work on calcifying microvesicles can provide an understanding to study plaque biology–physiological as well pathophysiological events in atherosclerotic plaques as they mature and start to become “complex” typically have associated calcification, the hallmark of advancing atherosclerosis, seen in the aorta, coronary, and other muscular arteries.12  In the literature, the terms microvesicles and microparticles have been used interchangeably. A forum hosted by the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, however, provided a consensus definition of plasma microvesicles as vesicles of less than 1 μm in diameter which bear at least half of the surface protein and/or receptors of their cells of origin.13,14 Remarkably, typical sizes of calcifying nanoparticles are comparable to membrane-bound vesicles released by a variety of cells, globular proteins and matrix vesicles that are present at sites of physiological and pathological mineral deposition, such as normal bone and soft tissues in mammals and birds.15 For example, when examined under a high resolution electron microscope, calcifying microvesicles morphologically appear akin to calcifying nanoparticles, which were originally obtained from calcified arteries.16  The observations of Wagner et al raise several important questions. First, this study provides only a preliminary account of the presence of calcifying microvesicles. Second, without knowing the lipid composition of the endosomal membrane, one cannot conclude that calcifying microvesicles originate from a specific membrane domain. Is this the case or are they functionally distinct features of endosomes that produce different intraluminal vesicles?17 Also, if both types of particles, either calcifying microvesicles or calcifying nanoparticles, are present in the same plaque, they must somehow be biologically distinct from each other, or be calcifying microvesicles, another analogous substructure of calcifying nanoparticles? However, development of specific biomolecular markers against all biologically existing particles, including recently added bions,18 holds the promise of putting an end to all ambiguities pertaining to their identities.

Are calcifying microvesicles another analogous substructure of calcifying nanoparticles?