International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2020
Assessing tissue transcription biomarkers of chronic rhinosinusitis: a comparison of sampling methodologies.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hoggard Michael, Douglas Richard G, Taylor Michael W, Biswas Kristi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a spectrum of complex inflammatory conditions of the sinonasal mucosa. Identification of biomarkers that enable classification and improved delineation among CRS endotypes is of increasing interest. However, the extent to which less invasive sampling methods identify genuine tissue inflammatory patterns is not well understood. The aim of this study was to investigate mucosal swab and cytobrush sampling as less invasive proxies for tissue transcription levels of putative biomarkers of CRS.
METHODS: Expression levels of 21 biomarkers of interest were assessed via custom TaqMan array cards from mucosal biopsy, cytobrush, and swab samples, in 32 patients with CRS. Reported expression levels were compared between each of the 3 sample types within each patient.
RESULTS: Reported transcription levels from swab samples for IL33, MUC5AC, IL1RN, CXCL8 (IL-8), TNF, IFNG, IL5, OSM, IL1A, and IL17C, and cytobrush levels for IL33, MUC5AC, IL5RA, IL1RN, CXCL8 (IL-8), and IL5 were significantly different to tissue levels from matched biopsy samples.
CONCLUSION: Reported expression via swab and cytobrush sampling differed from patterns observed in matched tissue for 10 of 21 and 6 of 21 markers, respectively. Non-biopsy-based studies for these particular markers may therefore not adequately represent tissue inflammatory processes and should be interpreted with caution. Cytobrush samples largely tracked tissue patterns for the remaining target biomarkers. In these cases, cytobrush sampling appears to adequately reflect tissue patterns for several putative biomarkers of CRS, supporting their use in clinical and research settings as a less-invasive proxy for the assessment of mucosal tissue inflammatory transcription patterns.
METHODS: Expression levels of 21 biomarkers of interest were assessed via custom TaqMan array cards from mucosal biopsy, cytobrush, and swab samples, in 32 patients with CRS. Reported expression levels were compared between each of the 3 sample types within each patient.
RESULTS: Reported transcription levels from swab samples for IL33, MUC5AC, IL1RN, CXCL8 (IL-8), TNF, IFNG, IL5, OSM, IL1A, and IL17C, and cytobrush levels for IL33, MUC5AC, IL5RA, IL1RN, CXCL8 (IL-8), and IL5 were significantly different to tissue levels from matched biopsy samples.
CONCLUSION: Reported expression via swab and cytobrush sampling differed from patterns observed in matched tissue for 10 of 21 and 6 of 21 markers, respectively. Non-biopsy-based studies for these particular markers may therefore not adequately represent tissue inflammatory processes and should be interpreted with caution. Cytobrush samples largely tracked tissue patterns for the remaining target biomarkers. In these cases, cytobrush sampling appears to adequately reflect tissue patterns for several putative biomarkers of CRS, supporting their use in clinical and research settings as a less-invasive proxy for the assessment of mucosal tissue inflammatory transcription patterns.