4.6 Article

Airflow Obstruction in Adults with Williams Syndrome and Mice with Elastin Insufficiency

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12061438

关键词

Williams Beuren syndrome; pulmonary function tests; air trapping; obstructive pulmonary disease

资金

  1. Division of Intramural Research of the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute of the NIH [ZIA-HL006210, ZIA HL006212]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adults with Williams-Beuren syndrome exhibit lower lung function and exercise capacity, with increased air trapping and obstruction, potentially due to elastin insufficiency. Monitoring of lung function is important for individuals with WS.
Williams-Beuren syndrome (WS) results from the deletion of 25-27 coding genes, including elastin (ELN), on human chromosome 7q11.23. Elastin provides recoil to tissues; emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have been linked to its destruction. Consequently, we hypothesized that elastin insufficiency would predispose to obstructive features. Twenty-two adults with WS (aged 18-55) and controls underwent pulmonary function testing, 6 min walk, and chest computed tomography (CT). Lung and airspace dimensions were assessed in Eln(+/-) and control mice via microCT and histology. The forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and the ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity (FVC) were lower in adults with WS (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.05, respectively). The FEV1/FVC ratio was more frequently below the lower limit of normal in cases (p < 0.01). The ratio of residual volume to total lung capacity (RV/TLC, percent predicted) was higher in cases (p < 0.01), suggesting air trapping. People with WS showed reduced exercise capacity (p < 0.0001). In Eln(+/-) mice, ex vivo lung volumes were increased (p < 0.0001), with larger airspaces (p < 0.001). Together these data show that elastin insufficiency impacts lung physiology in the form of increased air trapping and obstruction, suggesting a role for lung function monitoring in adults with WS.

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