Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 26, 2026

Evaluation of a Reliable Biomarker in a Cecal Ligation and Puncture-Induced Mouse Model of Sepsis
Published on: December 9, 2022
Biomarkers of endothelial activation/dysfunction distinguish sub-groups of Ugandan patients with sepsis and differing
Danielle V Clark1, Patrick Banura2, Karen Bandeen-Roche3
1Austere environments Consortium for Enhanced Sepsis Outcomes, Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Background:
Sepsis is a complex clinical syndrome with substantial heterogeneity. We sought to identify patterns of serum biomarkers of endothelial activation and dysfunction in individuals with sepsis and evaluate subgroup-specific differences in mortality.
Methods:
Adult patients with sepsis (n=426) were consecutively recruited from two hospitals in Uganda. Clinical information was collected and serum concentrations of eleven biomarkers involved in the endothelial response to infection were measured in samples from 315 patients. Latent variable models were fit to evaluate whether the endothelial response to sepsis consists of one unified biological process or multiple processes and to identify subgroups of patients with distinct host-response profiles. Differences in survival at day 28 were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
Results:
We identified three patient subgroups characterized by unique host endothelial response profiles. Patients fitting Profile 2 had significantly worse survival (log-rank p<0.001). Four latent factors (Factor 1-4) were identified, each potentially representing distinct biological processes for the endothelial response to sepsis: Factor 1 (CHI3L1, sTREM1, sFLT1); Factor 2 (ANGPT1, PF4, VEGF); Factor 3 (CXCL10, VWF, sICAM1); and Factor 4 (ANGPT2, sTEK).
Conclusion:
Patient profiles based on patterns of circulating biomarkers of endothelial responses may provide a clinically meaningful way to categorize patients into homogeneous subgroups and may identify patients with a high risk of mortality. Profile 2 may represent dysfunction of the endothelial response to infection.
Funding:
Primary funding: Investigator-Initiated Award provided by Pfizer, Inc (WMS, STJ). Additional support: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Foundation grant (KCK; FDN-148439) and the Canada Research Chair program (KCK).
Related Concept Videos
Relative Risk
Difference from Background: Limit of Detection
The LOD indicates the presence or absence...
Electric Potential and Potential Difference
When a test charge moves from the initial to the final position, the electric potential difference between those positions is defined as the ratio of the change in the potential energy to the charge on the...
Identifying Statistically Significant Differences: The F-Test
Sum and Difference OpAmps
A summing amplifier, or an adder, utilizes an op-amp to merge multiple input signals into a single output signal. When audio signals are introduced into its input channels, the input resistors initiate currents that traverse feedback resistors, resulting in an output voltage. Applying Kirchhoff's current...
Factors Affecting the Risk of Infection
The integrity and count of the white blood cells help the body resist pathogens and fight infection. When impaired, it reduces the body's resistance to pathogens. The acidic pH levels of the gastrointestinal, genitourinary tracts, and skin...

