Locytic AECOPD; {P,0.01 vs. the (-)-Calyculin A chemical Eliglustat site information Neutrophilic AECOPD; `P,0.05 vs. the Paucigranulocytic AECOPD; | P,0.05 vs. the Neutrophilic AECOPD; 1P,0.05 vs. the Eosinophilic AECOPD; “P,0.05 vs. the Mixed granulocytic AECOPD. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057678.tTable 3. The levels of serum and sputum inflammatory mediators in AECOPD patients.Eosinophilic Blood CRP (mg/L) Sputum CRP (ug/L) Blood MMP9 (ng/mL) Sputum MM P-9 (ng/mL) Blood IL-6 (pg/mL) Sputum IL-6 (pg/mL) Blood SAA (mg/L) 10(8.4?3.2) 48(24?12) 1030(406?497) 528(338?159) 19(12?2) 362(268?70) 36(27?4)Neutrophilic 16(12?9) * 145(78?70)+* 750(516?161) 1836(1045?891)+ 31(17?7)+ 918(447?372)+* 84(64?16)+*+Mixed granulocytic 14.8(14.3?8.2) * 199(175?37)+*” 1760(828?810) 4914(3140?390)+*” 125(47?32)+*” 2541(765?890)+* 142(52?53)+*+Paucigranulocytic 12(7.3?5) 22(11?0) 680(385?427) 930(293?117) 16(7.0?2) 459(167?089) 32(23?2)control 0.83(0.5?.6) 7(3.8?6) 355(165?48) 392(93?04) 5.7(3.4?.7) 48(31?40) 3.8(2.9?.5)Data are expressed as median (IQR). The difference among groups was determined by Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test. *P,0.05 vs. the Eosinophilic; +P,0.05 vs. the Paucigranulocytic; “P,0.05 vs. the Neutrophilic; All of the patient groups were significantly higher than that in the controls (P,0.01). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057678.tSputum Cellular Phenotypes in AECOPDTable 16985061 4. Clinical characteristics of patients with stable COPD.Eosinophilic N Age (years) BODE score GOLD I GOLD II GOLD III GOLD IV Post-FEV1 (L) Post-FEV1/pred ( ) FEV1/FVC ( ) Volume of sputum (mL) Blood leukocytes (109/L) Blood neutrophils (10 /L) Blood eosinophils (109/L) Total cell count (10 /mL) Neutrophils (106/mL) eosinophils (106/mL) macrophages (10 /mL) lymphocytes (106/mL) epithelial cells (106/mL) Squamous cells (106/mL)6 6Neutrophilic 29 65.4611.2 3.0(2.0?.8)*” 2 5 15 7 1.2860.44` 40.867.6` 60.468.9 13(9?7)*” 8.3(6.7?.2)*” 5.1(3.5?.2) 0.17(0.0?.35) 15.3(7.2?1.1)*”Mixed granulocytic 3 60.3610.8 3.0(3.0?.0)*” 0 0 1 2 0.7860.051` 30.064.1` 58.467.3 14(9?8)*” 7.8(7.0?.2)`* 4.8(4.1?.3) 0.7(0.53?.9){” 16.4(10.6?9.7)*” 12.1(7.4?6.3)*” 1.8(0.9?.9)”{ 2.2(0.2?1.4) 0.0(0.0?.12) 0.9(0.5?.4) 0.7(0.3?.9)Paucigranulocytic 24 62.8610.1 0.0(0.0?.0) 2 11 23148522 11 0 1.3960.49 49.0617.4 62.467.6 6(2.5?0) 7.2(6.2?.4) 4.9(3.9?.7) 0.11(0.0?.28) 1.0(0.5?.2) 0.2(0.1?.6) 0.0(0.0?.1) 0.7(0.2?.3) 0.0(0.0?.02) 1.6(0.7?.7) 1.2(0.6?.1)5 66.0613.0 1.0(0.0?.0) 2 2 1 0 1.3360.42 43.3616.0 61.169.3 4(2?) 6.4(5.3?.8) 4.3(3.4?.1) 0.67(0.54?.8){” 1.4(0.8?.2) 0.7(0.4?.1) 0.3(0.2?.9)”{ 0.9(0.3?.1) 0.0(0.0?.03) 0.8(0.4?.2) 0.3(0.0?.7)10.3(6.5?4.2)*” 0.1(0.0?.2) 1.4(0.3?.9) 0.0(0.0?.42) 0.9(0.3?.7) 0.8(0.2?.4)Data are expressed as mean 6 SD or median (IQR). The difference among groups was determined by ANOVA, Kruskall Wallis, Mann-Whitney U test or Chi square. *P,0.01 vs. the Eosinophilic COPD; “P,0.01 vs. the Paucigranulocytic COPD; {P,0.01 vs. the Neutrophilic COPD; `P,0.05 vs. the Paucigranulocytic COPD; 1P,0.05 vs. the Neutrophilic COPD. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057678.tanalyses were performed using SPSS17.0 software. A p value of ,0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results Studying patientsTo determine the inflammatory cellular phenotypes, a total of 296 patients with COPD were screened and 83 patients withTable 5. The levels of serum and sputum inflammatory mediators in stable COPD patients.Eosinophilic Blood CRP (mg/L) Sputum CRP (ug/L) Blood MMP-9 (ng/mL) Sputum MMP-9 (ng/mL) Blood IL-6 (pg/mL) Sputum IL-6 (pg/mL) Blood SAA (mg/L) 3.8(3?.7.Locytic AECOPD; {P,0.01 vs. the Neutrophilic AECOPD; `P,0.05 vs. the Paucigranulocytic AECOPD; | P,0.05 vs. the Neutrophilic AECOPD; 1P,0.05 vs. the Eosinophilic AECOPD; “P,0.05 vs. the Mixed granulocytic AECOPD. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057678.tTable 3. The levels of serum and sputum inflammatory mediators in AECOPD patients.Eosinophilic Blood CRP (mg/L) Sputum CRP (ug/L) Blood MMP9 (ng/mL) Sputum MM P-9 (ng/mL) Blood IL-6 (pg/mL) Sputum IL-6 (pg/mL) Blood SAA (mg/L) 10(8.4?3.2) 48(24?12) 1030(406?497) 528(338?159) 19(12?2) 362(268?70) 36(27?4)Neutrophilic 16(12?9) * 145(78?70)+* 750(516?161) 1836(1045?891)+ 31(17?7)+ 918(447?372)+* 84(64?16)+*+Mixed granulocytic 14.8(14.3?8.2) * 199(175?37)+*” 1760(828?810) 4914(3140?390)+*” 125(47?32)+*” 2541(765?890)+* 142(52?53)+*+Paucigranulocytic 12(7.3?5) 22(11?0) 680(385?427) 930(293?117) 16(7.0?2) 459(167?089) 32(23?2)control 0.83(0.5?.6) 7(3.8?6) 355(165?48) 392(93?04) 5.7(3.4?.7) 48(31?40) 3.8(2.9?.5)Data are expressed as median (IQR). The difference among groups was determined by Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test. *P,0.05 vs. the Eosinophilic; +P,0.05 vs. the Paucigranulocytic; “P,0.05 vs. the Neutrophilic; All of the patient groups were significantly higher than that in the controls (P,0.01). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057678.tSputum Cellular Phenotypes in AECOPDTable 16985061 4. Clinical characteristics of patients with stable COPD.Eosinophilic N Age (years) BODE score GOLD I GOLD II GOLD III GOLD IV Post-FEV1 (L) Post-FEV1/pred ( ) FEV1/FVC ( ) Volume of sputum (mL) Blood leukocytes (109/L) Blood neutrophils (10 /L) Blood eosinophils (109/L) Total cell count (10 /mL) Neutrophils (106/mL) eosinophils (106/mL) macrophages (10 /mL) lymphocytes (106/mL) epithelial cells (106/mL) Squamous cells (106/mL)6 6Neutrophilic 29 65.4611.2 3.0(2.0?.8)*” 2 5 15 7 1.2860.44` 40.867.6` 60.468.9 13(9?7)*” 8.3(6.7?.2)*” 5.1(3.5?.2) 0.17(0.0?.35) 15.3(7.2?1.1)*”Mixed granulocytic 3 60.3610.8 3.0(3.0?.0)*” 0 0 1 2 0.7860.051` 30.064.1` 58.467.3 14(9?8)*” 7.8(7.0?.2)`* 4.8(4.1?.3) 0.7(0.53?.9){” 16.4(10.6?9.7)*” 12.1(7.4?6.3)*” 1.8(0.9?.9)”{ 2.2(0.2?1.4) 0.0(0.0?.12) 0.9(0.5?.4) 0.7(0.3?.9)Paucigranulocytic 24 62.8610.1 0.0(0.0?.0) 2 11 23148522 11 0 1.3960.49 49.0617.4 62.467.6 6(2.5?0) 7.2(6.2?.4) 4.9(3.9?.7) 0.11(0.0?.28) 1.0(0.5?.2) 0.2(0.1?.6) 0.0(0.0?.1) 0.7(0.2?.3) 0.0(0.0?.02) 1.6(0.7?.7) 1.2(0.6?.1)5 66.0613.0 1.0(0.0?.0) 2 2 1 0 1.3360.42 43.3616.0 61.169.3 4(2?) 6.4(5.3?.8) 4.3(3.4?.1) 0.67(0.54?.8){” 1.4(0.8?.2) 0.7(0.4?.1) 0.3(0.2?.9)”{ 0.9(0.3?.1) 0.0(0.0?.03) 0.8(0.4?.2) 0.3(0.0?.7)10.3(6.5?4.2)*” 0.1(0.0?.2) 1.4(0.3?.9) 0.0(0.0?.42) 0.9(0.3?.7) 0.8(0.2?.4)Data are expressed as mean 6 SD or median (IQR). The difference among groups was determined by ANOVA, Kruskall Wallis, Mann-Whitney U test or Chi square. *P,0.01 vs. the Eosinophilic COPD; “P,0.01 vs. the Paucigranulocytic COPD; {P,0.01 vs. the Neutrophilic COPD; `P,0.05 vs. the Paucigranulocytic COPD; 1P,0.05 vs. the Neutrophilic COPD. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057678.tanalyses were performed using SPSS17.0 software. A p value of ,0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results Studying patientsTo determine the inflammatory cellular phenotypes, a total of 296 patients with COPD were screened and 83 patients withTable 5. The levels of serum and sputum inflammatory mediators in stable COPD patients.Eosinophilic Blood CRP (mg/L) Sputum CRP (ug/L) Blood MMP-9 (ng/mL) Sputum MMP-9 (ng/mL) Blood IL-6 (pg/mL) Sputum IL-6 (pg/mL) Blood SAA (mg/L) 3.8(3?.7.
Related Posts
Published by Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd on behalf of JapanPublished by Wiley Publishing Asia
Published by Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd on behalf of JapanPublished by Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd on behalf of Japan Cancer Association.Original Article Flumatinib overcomes drug resistance of KITTable 1. Comparative effects of imatinib, flumatinib, and ACAT2 manufacturer sunitinib on the proliferation of 32D cell lines expressing transforming KIT mutants Imply SD (nM) Cell […]
Ctivates p53-dependent apoptosis beneath appropriate conditions, such as DNA harm [55]. Its
Ctivates p53-dependent apoptosis beneath acceptable circumstances, such as DNA harm [55]. Its regulation by TRCP is consistent together with the recognized role of TRCP in responding to DNA damage, and may support clarify the oncogenic impact of TRCP overexpression [18] (as well as other identified tumor suppressor substrates of TRCP, which include REST[45]). RASSF3 appears […]
Subsequently we validated the mRNA expressions for a selected set of genes using realtime PCR
s an acute phase MedChemExpress Debio1347 reactant, may be involved in CE-induced apoptosis, probably via the CRP/ROS cascade. HO-1 and/or CORM-2 protect against CE-induced inflammation, ROS production and apoptosis induction We next investigated whether there is any change in HO-1 expression in zebrafish gills or human respiratory epithelial cells following CE exposure and the functional […]