4.3 Article

Porphyromonas, a potential predictive biomarker of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pulmonary infection in cystic fibrosis

期刊

BMJ OPEN RESPIRATORY RESEARCH
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjresp-2018-000374

关键词

-

资金

  1. French Cystic Fibrosis Association 'Vaincre la Mucoviscidose' [RC20170501971]
  2. French Cystic Fibrosis Association 'Gregory Lemarchal' [RC20170501971]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Pseudomonas aeruginosa pulmonary infections are the primary cause of morbi-mortality in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). In this cohort study, the objective was to identify candidate biomarkers of P. aeruginosa infection within the airway microbiota. Methods A 3-year prospective multicentre study (PYOMUCO study) was conducted in Western France and included patients initially P. aeruginosa free for at least 1 year. A 16S-targeted metagenomics approach was applied on iterative sputum samples of a first set of patients (n=33). The composition of airway microbiota was compared according to their P. aeruginosa status at the end of the follow-up (colonised vs non-colonised), and biomarkers associated with P. aeruginosa were screened. In a second step, the distribution of a candidate biomarker according to the two groups of patients was verified by qPCR on a second set of patients (n=52) coming from the same cohort and its load quantified throughout the follow-up. Results Porphyromonas (mainly P. catoniae) was found to be an enriched phylotype in patients uninfected by P. aeruginosa (p<0.001). This result was confirmed by quantitative PCR. Conversely, in patients who became P. aeruginosa-positive, P. catoniae significantly decreased before P. aeruginosa acquisition (p=0.014). Discussion Further studies on replication cohorts are needed to validate this potential predictive biomarker, which may be relevant for the follow-up in the early years of patients with CF. The identification of infection candidate biomarkers may offer new strategies for CF precision medicine.

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