4.5 Article

Sputum proteomic signature of gastro-oesophageal reflux in patients with severe asthma

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 150, 期 -, 页码 66-73

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2019.02.008

关键词

-

资金

  1. Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) [115010]
  2. EFPIA companies
  3. IMI (EU) [115446]
  4. BBSRC [BB/M012387/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) has long been associated with poor asthma control without an established cause-effect relationship. 610 asthmatics (421 severe/88 mild-moderate) and 101 healthy controls were assessed clinically and a subset of 154 severe asthmatics underwent proteomic analysis of induced sputum using untargeted mass spectrometry, LC-IMS-MSE. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses (MLR) were conducted to identify proteins associated with GORD in this cohort. When compared to mild/moderate asthmatics and healthy individuals, respectively, GORD was three-and ten-fold more prevalent in severe asthmatics and was associated with increased asthma symptoms and oral corticosteroid use, poorer quality of life, depression/anxiety, obesity and symptoms of sino-nasal disease. Comparison of sputum proteomes in severe asthmatics with and without active GORD showed five differentially abundant proteins with described roles in antimicrobial defences, systemic inflammation and epithelial integrity. Three of these were associated with active GORD by multiple linear regression analysis: Ig lambda variable 1-47 (p = 0.017) and plasma protease C1 inhibitor (p = 0.043), both in lower concentrations, and lipocalin-1 (p = 0.034) in higher concentrations in active GORD. This study provides evidence which suggests that reflux can cause subtle perturbation of proteins detectable in the airways lining fluid and that severe asthmatics with GORD may represent a distinct phenotype of asthma.

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