4.2 Article

Monocyte chemotactic protein-4 (MCP-4; CCL-13): A biomarker of asthma

期刊

JOURNAL OF ASTHMA
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 27-33

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1081/JAS-120024590

关键词

asthma; chemokine; biomarker; MCP-4; inflammation

资金

  1. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL064104] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R37AI040618, R01AI040618] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL/AI-64104] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIAID NIH HHS [AI 40618] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Airway expression of monocyte chemotactic protein-4 (MCP-4; CCL-13) is known to be increased in asthmatic airways where it is induced by proallergic cytokines, but the relationship of its systemic expression to asthma and naturally occurring exacerbations is unknown. We determined plasma levels of MCP-4 in 356 individuals with chronic-stable asthma and 240 normal subjects and compared plasma levels of MCP-4 in 30 patients who presented for emergent treatment of asthma with levels in 90 subjects with chronic-stable asthma matched for age, gender, and ethnicity. Median plasma MCP-4 levels were higher in patients with chronic-stable asthma than in normal subjects (399 vs. 307 pg/mL) (p < 0.001). In our entire cohort (n = 596), subjects with an MCP-4 greater than or equal to 218 pg/mL were at increased risk of asthma (p < 0.001 odds ratio, 3.26; 95% Cl, 2.22-4.79). Logistic regression identified MCP-4 as an independent predictor of asthma diagnosis. The MCP-4 levels are higher in individuals with an acute asthma exacerbation than in subjects with chronic-stable asthma (513 vs. 355 pg/mL) (p = 0.002). The MCP-4 is a systemically expressed biomarker that independently predicts susceptibility to asthma and is directly associated with exacerbations. Elevated MCP-4 levels identify a group of asthmatics with systemic evidence of allergic inflammation who may be at risk for exacerbations or may benefit from abrogation of MCP-4.

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

4.2
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