4.7 Article

Expression of ACE2, the SARS-CoV-2 Receptor, in Lung Tissue of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

期刊

DIABETES
卷 69, 期 12, 页码 2691-2699

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db20-0669

关键词

-

资金

  1. Concerted Research Action of the Ghent University (Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds grant) [01G00819]
  2. Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek in Flanders (FWO Vlaanderen) [G052518N, 3G037618, G0G2318N]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increased expression of pulmonary ACE2, the SARS-CoV-2 receptor, could contribute to increased infectivity of COVID-19 in patients with diabetes, but ACE2 expression has not been studied in lung tissue of subjects with diabetes. We therefore studied ACE2 mRNA and protein expression in lung tissue samples of subjects with and without diabetes that were collected between 2002 and 2020 from patients undergoing lobectomy for lung tumors. For RT-PCR analyses, samples from 15 subjects with diabetes were compared with 91 randomly chosen control samples. For immunohistochemical staining, samples from 26 subjects with diabetes were compared with 66 randomly chosen control samples. mRNA expression of ACE2 was measured by quantitative RT-PCR. Protein levels of ACE2 were visualized by immunohistochemistry on paraffin-embedded lung tissue samples and quantified in alveolar and bronchial epithelium. Pulmonary ACE2 mRNA expression was not different between subjects with or without diabetes. In contrast, protein levels of ACE2 were significantly increased in both alveolar tissue and bronchial epithelium of patients with diabetes compared with control subjects, independent of smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, BMI, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor use, and other potential confounders. To conclude, we show increased bronchial and alveolar ACE2 protein expression in patients with diabetes. Further research is needed to elucidate whether upregulation of ACE2 expression in airways and lungs has consequences on infectivity and clinical outcomes of COVID-19.

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

4.7
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