4.6 Article

Gene expression profiling of human lung tissue from smokers with severe emphysema

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1165/rcmb.2004-0273OC

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL71771] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIEHS NIH HHS [ES10377] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mechanism by which inhaled smoke causes the anatomic lesions and physiologic impairment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease remains unknown. We used high-density microarrays to measure gene expression in severely emphysematous lung tissue removed from smokers at lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) and normal or mildly emphysematous lung tissue from smokers undergoing resection of pulmonary nodules. Class prediction algorithms identified 102 genes that accurately distinguished severe emphysema from non-/mildly emphysematous lung tissue. We also defined a number of genes whose expression levels correlated strongly with lung diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide and/or forced expiratory volume at 1 s. Genes related to oxidative stress, extracellular matrix synthesis, and inflammation were increased in severe emphysema, whereas expression of endothelium-related genes was decreased. To identify candidate genes that might be causally involved in the pathogenesis of emphysema, we linked gene expression profiles to chromosomal regions previously associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in genome-wide linkage analyses. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of the LVRS samples revealed distinct molecular subclasses of severe emphysema, with body mass index as the only clinical variable that differed between the groups. Class prediction models established a set of genes that predicted functional outcome at 6 mo after LVRS. Our findings suggest that the gene expression profiles from human emphysematous lung tissue may provide insight into pathogenesis, uncover novel molecular subclasses of disease, predict response to LVRS, and identify targets for therapeutic intervention.

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