4.3 Article

Peptidase inhibitor 3 and chemokine ligand 27 may serve as biomarkers for actinic keratoses in organ transplant recipients

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 259-267

出版社

JOHN LIBBEY EUROTEXT LTD
DOI: 10.1684/ejd.2019.3559

关键词

actinic keratosis; skin markers; photodynamic therapy

资金

  1. Galderma, France
  2. MEDA, Austria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Molecular profiling of tissue samples in organ transplant recipients (OTRs) may allow early and minimally invasive identification of actinic keratosis (AK). Objectives The aim of this study was to compare mRNA expression profiles of 13 genes, as putative genetic biomarkers of AK, before and after treatment using two different field therapies, and to correlate the results with histological and clinical parameters. Materials and Methods For this single-centre prospective randomized intra-patient-controlled study, 10 OTRs with AKs were recruited for field therapy with two cycles of methyl-5-aminolevulinate 16% cream-photodynamic therapy (PDT) at one site and imiquimod 5% cream for four weeks at another site. Results AKs in the PDT area were reduced significantly at one, two, and six months after completion of the treatment (p<0.001). The effect of imiquimod was weaker but still significant when evaluated during the same intervals (p<0.001). By comparing the mRNA expression profiles of various genetic markers before, during, and three months after therapy, we observed specific patterns of expression for skin-derived peptidase inhibitor 3 (PI3) and chemokine ligand 27 (CCL27) in all groups, regardless of the treatment modality. Compared to healthy skin, the expression of PI3 was strongly decreased and that of CCL27 increased inAKlesions before therapy. The expression level of both genes showed a significant convergence to values observed in healthy skin in both groups after therapy. Conclusion The pattern and level of specific gene expression in actinic keratoses could serve as a biomarker.

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

4.3
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