4.6 Article

Relationship of proteinases and proteinase inhibitors with microbial presence in chronic lung disease of prematurity

期刊

THORAX
卷 65, 期 3, 页码 246-251

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thx.2009.116061

关键词

-

资金

  1. Arriva Pharmaceuticals Inc
  2. NIH [HL066548]
  3. Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background A proteolytic imbalance has been implicated in the development of classical chronic lung disease of prematurity (CLD). However, in new CLD this pattern has changed. This study examines the longitudinal relationship between neutrophil proteinases and their inhibitors in ventilated preterm infants and their relationship to microbial colonisation. Methods Serial bronchoalveolar lavage fluid was obtained from ventilated newborn preterm infants. Neutrophil elastase (NE) activity, cell counts, metalloproteinase (MMP)-9, MMP-9/TIMP-1 complex, SerpinB1 concentration and percentage of SerpinB1 and alpha(1)-antitrypsin (AAT) in complex with elastase were measured. The presence of microbial genes was examined using PCR for 16S rRNA genes. Results Statistically more infants who developed CLD had NE activity in at least one sample (10/20) compared with infants with resolved respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) (2/17). However, NE activity was present in a minority of samples, occurring as episodic peaks. Peak levels of MMP-9, MMP-9/TIMP-1 complex, percentage of AAT and SerpinB1 in complex and cell counts were all statistically greater in infants developing CLD than in infants with resolved RDS. Peak values frequently occurred as episodic spikes and strong temporal relationships were noted between all markers. The peak values for all variables were significantly correlated to each other. The presence of bacterial 16S rRNA genes was asso Conclusion NE activity and MMP-9 appear to be important in the development of new CLD with both proteinase and inhibitor concentrations increasing episodically, possibly in response to postnatal infection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据