4.5 Article

Urinary exosome as a potential biomarker for urinary tract infection

期刊

CELLULAR MICROBIOLOGY
卷 21, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cmi.13020

关键词

Akt; asymptomatic bacteriuria; CD9; exosome; urinary tract infection; urine

资金

  1. GSK Japan Research
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, KAKENHI [JP18K09190]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Unlike urinary tract infection (UTI), asymptomatic bacteriuria (ABU) should not be treated, with some exceptions such as pregnant women and patients who will undergo traumatic urologic interventions. However, there has been no clinically available marker for their differential diagnosis. Exosomes or small extracellular vesicles carry proteins contained in cells from which they are derived, thus having the potential as a biomarker of several diseases. On the basis of the hypothesis that the molecular signature of exosomes in urine may differ between UTI and ABU patients, we examined if urinary exosomes could serve as a marker for their differential diagnosis. Exosomes were isolated by ultracentrifugation or affinity-based method from cell culture medium of monocytic THP-1 and uroepithelial SV-HUC-1 cells and human urine. Protein expression was examined by Western blot analysis, ELISA, and CLEIA. The results showed that the levels of intracellular signalling molecules Akt and ERK and transcription factor NF-kappa B increased in exosomes isolated from THP-1 and SV-HUC-1 cells cocultured with Escherichia coli and/or treated with lipopolysaccharide. In urinary exosomes of UTI patients, Akt significantly diminished, and an exosomal marker CD9 showed a trend to decrease after treatment with antimicrobial agents. More importantly, Akt and CD9 levels in urinary exosomes were higher in UTI patients than in ABU patients, which was also observed after correction by urine creatinine. Collectively, these results suggest that Akt and CD9 in urinary exosomes could be useful markers for differential diagnosis of UTI and ABU.

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

4.5
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