4.6 Article

Integrative transcriptome analysis deciphers mechanisms of nickel contact dermatitis

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 76, 期 3, 页码 804-815

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/all.14519

关键词

contact dermatitis; nickel; transcriptomics

资金

  1. Finnish Work Environment Fund [113314]
  2. Forskningsradet for halsa, arbetsliv och valfard (FORTE) [2018-00601]
  3. Forte [2018-00601] Funding Source: Forte
  4. Vinnova [2018-00601] Funding Source: Vinnova

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study identified major changes in leukocyte composition and associated immunological pathways in nickel-induced allergic contact dermatitis (nACD) affected skin. Results showed alterations in natural killer (NK) cells, macrophage polarization, and T-cell immunity at 48 and 96 hours after nickel patch test.
Background Nickel-induced allergic contact dermatitis (nACD) remains a major occupational skin disorder, significantly impacting the quality of life of suffering patients. Complex cellular compositional changes and associated immunological pathways are partly resolved in humans; thus, the impact of nACD on human skin needs to be further elucidated. Methods To decipher involved immunological players and pathways, human skin biopsies were taken at 0, 2, 48, and 96 hours after nickel patch test in six nickel-allergic patients. Gene expression profiles were analyzed via microarray. Results Leukocyte deconvolution of nACD-affected skin identified major leukocyte compositional changes at 48 and 96 hours, including natural killer (NK) cells, macrophage polarization, and T-cell immunity. Gene set enrichment analysis mirrored cellular-linked functional pathways enriched over time. NK cell infiltration and cytotoxic pathways were uniquely found in nACD-affected skin compared to sodium lauryl sulfate-induced irritant skin reactions. Conclusion These results highlight key immunological leukocyte subsets as well as associated pathways in nACD, providing insights into pathophysiology with the potential to unravel novel therapeutic targets.

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