Suppr超能文献

患者内比较特应性皮炎皮肤转录组显示胶带条和活检之间的差异。

Intrapatient comparison of atopic dermatitis skin transcriptome shows differences between tape-strips and biopsies.

机构信息

Department of Dermatology, and Laboratory of Inflammatory Skin Diseases, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, USA.

Department of Dermatology, University of Magna Graecia, Catanzaro, Italy.

出版信息

Allergy. 2024 Jan;79(1):80-92. doi: 10.1111/all.15845. Epub 2023 Aug 14.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Our knowledge of etiopathogenesis of atopic dermatitis (AD) is largely derived from skin biopsies, which are associated with pain, scarring and infection. In contrast, tape-stripping is a minimally invasive, nonscarring technique to collect skin samples.

METHODS

To construct a global AD skin transcriptomic profile comparing tape-strips to whole-skin biopsies, we performed RNA-seq on tape-strips and biopsies taken from the lesional skin of 20 moderate-to-severe AD patients and the skin of 20 controls. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were defined by fold-change (FCH) ≥2.0 and false discovery rate <0.05.

RESULTS

We detected 4104 (2513 Up; 1591 Down) and 1273 (546 Up; 727 Down) DEGs in AD versus controls, in tape-strips and biopsies, respectively. Although both techniques captured dysregulation of key immune genes, tape-strips showed higher FCHs for innate immunity (IL-1B, IL-8), dendritic cell (ITGAX/CD11C, FCER1A), Th2 (IL-13, CCL17, TNFRSF4/OX40), and Th17 (CCL20, CXCL1) products, while biopsies showed higher upregulation of Th22 associated genes (IL-22, S100As) and dermal cytokines (IFN-γ, CCL26). Itch-related genes (IL-31, TRPV3) were preferentially captured by tape-strips. Epidermal barrier abnormalities were detected in both techniques, with terminal differentiation defects (FLG2, PSORS1C2) better represented by tape-strips and epidermal hyperplasia changes (KRT16, MKI67) better detected by biopsies.

CONCLUSIONS

Tape-strips and biopsies capture overlapping but distinct features of the AD molecular signature, suggesting their respective utility for monitoring specific AD-related immune, itch, and barrier abnormalities in clinical trials and longitudinal studies.

摘要

背景

我们对特应性皮炎(AD)的发病机制的了解主要来源于皮肤活检,该方法与疼痛、瘢痕和感染相关。相比之下,胶带剥离是一种微创、非瘢痕的采集皮肤样本的技术。

方法

为了构建一个比较胶带剥离和全皮肤活检的 AD 皮肤转录组图谱,我们对 20 例中重度 AD 患者皮损皮肤和 20 例对照者皮肤的胶带剥离和活检样本进行了 RNA-seq 分析。通过倍数变化(FCH)≥2.0 和错误发现率(FDR)<0.05 来定义差异表达基因(DEGs)。

结果

我们在 AD 患者与对照者的胶带剥离和活检样本中分别检测到 4104 个(2513 个上调;1591 个下调)和 1273 个(546 个上调;727 个下调)DEGs。尽管这两种技术都能捕获关键免疫基因的失调,但胶带剥离显示更高的固有免疫(IL-1B、IL-8)、树突细胞(ITGAX/CD11C、FCER1A)、Th2(IL-13、CCL17、TNFRSF4/OX40)和 Th17(CCL20、CXCL1)产物的 FCH,而活检则显示更高的 Th22 相关基因(IL-22、S100As)和真皮细胞因子(IFN-γ、CCL26)的上调。瘙痒相关基因(IL-31、TRPV3)更倾向于被胶带剥离检测到。两种技术都检测到表皮屏障异常,其中终末分化缺陷(FLG2、PSORS1C2)在胶带剥离中表现更好,表皮增生改变(KRT16、MKI67)在活检中表现更好。

结论

胶带剥离和活检均能捕获 AD 分子特征的重叠但不同的特征,提示它们在临床试验和纵向研究中各自具有监测特定 AD 相关免疫、瘙痒和屏障异常的作用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验