4.7 Article

Feasibility of Early Detection of Cystic Fibrosis Acute Pulmonary Exacerbations by Exhaled Breath Condensate Metabolomics: A Pilot Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 550-558

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00675

关键词

cystic fibrosis; acute pulmonary exacerbations; metabolomics; ultraperformance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry

资金

  1. Emory+Children's Pediatric Center - Emory University
  2. Emory+Children's Pediatric Center - Children's Healthcare of Atlanta
  3. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation [MCCART15R0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Progressive lung function decline and, ultimately, respiratory failure are the most common cause of death in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). This decline is punctuated by acute pulmonary exacerbations (APEs), and in many cases, there is a failure to return to baseline lung function. Ultraperformance liquid chromatography quadrupole-time-of-flight mass spectrometry was used to profile metabolites in exhaled breath condensate (EBC) samples from 17 clinically stable CF patients, 9 CF patients with an APE severe enough to require hospitalization (termed APE), 5 CF patients during recovery from a severe APE (termed post-APE), and 4 CF patients who were clinically stable at the time of collection but in the subsequent 1-3 months developed a severe APE (termed pre-APE). A panel containing two metabolic discriminant features, 4-hydroxycyclohexylcarboxylic acid and pyroglutamic acid, differentiated the APE samples from the stable CF samples with 84.6% accuracy. Pre-APE samples were distinguished from stable CF samples by lactic acid and pyroglutamic acid with 90.5% accuracy and in general matched the APE signature when projected onto the APE vs stable CF model. Post-APE samples were on average more similar to stable CF samples in terms of their metabolomic signature. These results show the feasibility of detecting and predicting an oncoming APE or monitoring APE treatment using EBC metabolites.

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