Unraveling the PAF-AH/Lp-PLA2 controversy

The secreted or plasma form of platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase (PAF-AH), also known as lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 (Lp-PLA2) or phospholipase A2 group 7 (PLA2G7), is a member of the PLA2 superfamily of enzymes that circulates in blood in association with lipoproteins, and is found in atherosclerotic lesions [reviewed in (2, 3)]. This enzyme was discovered in the early 1980s based on its ability to hydrolyze the pro-inflammatory glycerophospholipid PAF, and was thus proposed to have anti-inflammatory properties. In subsequent years, it was recognized that PAF-AH hydrolyzes glycerophospholipids containing short and/or oxidized functionalities at the sn-2 position, with no preference for the type of linkage at the sn-1 position, i.e., alkyl versus acyl. Substrate hydrolysis catalyzed by PAF-AH generates lysoPAF/lyso phosphatidylcholine (lysoPC) and short and/or oxidized fatty acids, many of which also have been reported to have pro-inflammatory and pro-oxidative activities (4). These observations fueled multiple investigations that led to controversial views regarding the role of PAF-AH in human physiology and disease (1, 4–6). Notably, the hypothesis that PAF-AH might actively contribute to vascular inflammation during atherogenesis owing to its ability to generate pro-inflammatory substances (7) led to the proposition that inhibition of the activity could offer vascular protection in addition to that afforded by cholesterol lowering agents. A number of reversible PAF-AH inhibitors were developed in the pharmaceutical industry and one of them, darapladib, has been extensively tested in vitro and in vivo (8–14). Moreover, GlaxoSmithKline sponsored three darapladib clinical trials that yielded relatively consistent results (11, 15–20).