4.7 Article

Sputum and bronchial submucosal IL-13 expression in asthma and eosinophilic bronchitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 114, 期 5, 页码 1106-1109

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2004.08.032

关键词

asthma; IL-13; eosinophilic bronchitis; eosinophils; mast cells

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis is a condition characterized by the presence of eosinophilic airway inflammation in the absence of airflow obstruction or airway hyperresponsiveness. In asthma, the T(H)2-type cytokine IL-13 has been implicated in the development of airway inflammation and hyperresponsiveness. Whether the expression of IL-13 is different between these 2 conditions is unknown. Objective: We sought to investigate whether IL-13 expression is increased in asthma compared with eosinophilic bronchitis. Methods: Sputum samples from subjects with mild asthma (n = 30) and eosinophilic bronchitis (n = 15) and normal controls (n = 16) were dialyzed, and IL-13 concentration was measured by ELISA. In a subgroup of these patients, IL-13 protein expression in bronchial biopsies was assessed by immunohistochemistry. Results: The concentration of sputum IL-13 was higher in patients with mild asthma than in normal controls (P = .03) and in patients with eosinophilic bronchitis (P = .03). The median (interquartile range) number of IL-13(+) cells/mm(2) submucosa was significantly higher in asthma 4 (8) than eosinophilic bronchitis 1.7 (1.9) and normal controls 0.5 (1.1; P = .004). Eighty-three percent of the cells expressing IL-13 in the submucosa were eosinophils, and 8% were mast cells. The median (interquartile range) proportion of eosinophils that expressed IL-13 was higher in the subjects with asthma, 16 (10)%, than those with eosinophilic bronchitis, 7 (3)% (P = .02). Conclusion: The increased expression of IL-13 in asthma compared with eosinophilic bronchitis supports the concept that IL-13 may play a critical role in the pathophysiology of asthma.

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