4.8 Article

The nonlesional skin surface distinguishes atopic dermatitis with food allergy as a unique endotype

期刊

SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 480, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aav2685

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH/NIAID Atopic Dermatitis Research Network [U19AI117673, UM2AI117870]
  2. NIH/NCATS Colorado CTSA [UL1 TR002535]
  3. Edelstein Family Chair for Pediatric Allergy at NJH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Skin barrier dysfunction has been reported in both atopic dermatitis (AD) and food allergy (FA). However, only one-third of patients with AD have FA. The purpose of this study was to use a minimally invasive skin tape strip sampling method and a multiomics approach to determine whether children with AD and FA (AD FA+) have stratum corneum (SC) abnormalities that distinguish them from AD without FA (AD FA-) and nonatopic (NA) controls. Transepidermal water loss was found to be increased in AD FA+. Filaggrin and the proportion of omega-hydroxy fatty acid sphingosine ceramide content in nonlesional skin of children with AD FA+ were substantially lower than in AD FA- and NA skin. These abnormalities correlated with morphologic changes in epidermal lamellar bilayer architecture responsible for barrier homeostasis. Shotgun metagenomic studies revealed that the nonlesional skin of AD FA+ had increased abundance of Staphylococcus aureus compared to NA. Increased expression of keratins 5, 14, and 16 indicative of hyperproliferative keratinocytes was observed in the SC of AD FA+. The skin transcriptome of AD FA+ had increased gene expression for dendritic cells and type 2 immune pathways. A network analysis revealed keratins 5, 14, and 16 were positively correlated with AD FA+, whereas filaggrin breakdown products were negatively correlated with AD FA+. These data suggest that the most superficial compartment of nonlesional skin in AD FA+ has unique properties associated with an immature skin barrier and type 2 immune activation.

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

4.8
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