4.5 Article

Changes in the respiratory microbiome during acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

期刊

RESPIRATORY RESEARCH
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12931-017-0511-3

关键词

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; Acute exacerbation; Bacterial infection; 16S

资金

  1. Asmarley Trust
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. NIHR Clinician Scientist Fellowship (NIHR) [CS-2013-13-017]
  4. NIHR Respiratory Disease Biomedical Research Unit at the Royal Brompton
  5. Harefield NHS Foundation Trust
  6. AHSC Biomedical Research Centre at Imperial College London
  7. National Institutes of Health [HL097163, HL092870]
  8. Asthma UK [MRC-AsthmaUKCentre, MRC-Asthma UK Centre] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. British Lung Foundation [BLF-RMF15-16] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. Medical Research Council [G1000758] Funding Source: researchfish
  11. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0512-10126, CS-2013-13-017] Funding Source: researchfish
  12. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [CS-2013-13-017] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) have been defined as events of clinically significant respiratory deterioration with an unidentifiable cause. They carry a significant mortality and morbidity and while their exact pathogenesis remains unclear, the possibility remains that hidden infection may play a role. The aim of this pilot study was to determine whether changes in the respiratory microbiota occur during an AE-IPF. Bacterial DNA was extracted from bronchoalveolar lavage from patients with stable IPF and those experiencing an AE-IPF. A hyper-variable region of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene (16S rRNA) was amplified, quantified and pyrosequenced. Culture independent techniques demonstrate AE-IPF is associated with an increased BAL bacterial burden compared to stable disease and highlight shifts in the composition of the respiratory microbiota during an AE-IPF.

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

4.5
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