Dataset Information

Adult allergic rhinitis sufferers have unique nasal mucosal and peripheral blood immune gene expression profiles: A case-control study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a complex disease involving both mucosal and systemic immune compartments. Greater understanding of the immune networks underpinning AR pathophysiology may assist with further refining disease-specific biomarkers.

Objective

To compare immune gene expression profiles in nasal mucosa and peripheral blood samples between adults with AR and controls without AR.

Methods

This cross-sectional study included 45 adults with moderate-severe and persistent AR (37.6 ± 12.8 years; mean ± SD) and 24 adults without AR (36.6 ± 10.2). Gene expression analysis was performed using the NanoString nCounter PanCancer Immune profiling panel (n = 730 immune genes) in combination with the panel plus probe set (n = 30 allergy-related genes) with purified RNA from peripheral blood and cell lysates prepared from combined nasal lavage and nasal brushing.

Results

One hundred and thirteen genes were significantly differentially expressed in peripheral blood samples between groups (p < .05). In contrast, 14 genes were differentially expressed in nasal lysate samples between groups (p < .05). Upregulation of allergy-related genes in nasal mucosa samples in the AR group was observed. Namely, chemokines CCL17 and CCL26 are involved in the chemotaxis of key effector cells and TPSAB1 encodes tryptase, an inflammatory mediator released from activated mast cells and basophils. Six differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were in common between the nasal mucosa and blood samples. In addition, counts of specific DEGs in nasal mucosa samples were positively correlated with eosinophil and dust mite-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) counts in blood.

Conclusions and clinical relevance

Distinct gene expression profiles in blood and nasal mucosa samples were observed between AR sufferers and controls. The results of this study also provide evidence for a close interaction between the local site and systemic immunity. The genes identified in this study contribute to the current knowledge of AR pathophysiology and may serve as biomarkers to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment regimens, or as targets for drug discovery.

SUBMITTER: Watts AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8669689 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAlthough recent studies have shown that the human microbiome is involved in the pathogenesis of allergic diseases, the impact of microbiota on allergic rhinitis (AR) and non-allergic rhinitis (nAR) has not been elucidated. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in the composition of the nasal flora in patients with AR and nAR and their role in the pathogenesis.MethodFrom February to September 2022, 35 AR patients and 35 nAR patients admitted to Harbin Medical University's Second Affiliated Hospital, as well as 20 healthy subjects who underwent physical examination during the same period, were subjected to 16SrDNA and metagenomic sequencing of nasal flora.ResultsThe microbiota composition of the three groups of study subjects differs significantly. The relative abundance of Vibrio vulnificus and Acinetobacter baumanni in the nasal cavity of AR patients was significantly higher when compared to nAR patients, while the relative abundance of Lactobacillus murinus, Lactobacillus iners, Proteobacteria, Pseudomonadales, and Escherichia coli was lower. In addition, Lactobacillus murinus and Lacttobacillus kunkeei were also negatively correlated with IgE, while Lacttobacillus kunkeei was positively correlated with age. The relative distribution of Faecalibacterium was higher in moderate than in severe AR patients. According to KEGG functional enrichment annotation, ICMT(protein-S-isoprenylcysteine O-methyltransferase,ICMT) is an AR microbiota-specific enzyme that plays a role, while glycan biosynthesis and metabolism are more active in AR microbiota. For AR, the model containing Parabacteroides goldstemii, Sutterella-SP-6FBBBBH3, Pseudoalteromonas luteoviolacea, Lachnospiraceae bacterium-615, and Bacteroides coprocola had the highest the area under the curve (AUC), which was 0.9733(95%CI:0.926-1.000) in the constructed random forest prediction model. The largest AUC for nAR is 0.984(95%CI:0.949-1.000) for the model containing Pseudomonas-SP-LTJR-52, Lachnospiraceae bacterium-615, Prevotella corporis, Anaerococcus vaginalis, and Roseburia inulinivorans.ConclusionIn conclusion, patients with AR and nAR had significantly different microbiota profiles compared to healthy controls. The results suggest that the nasal microbiota may play a key role in the pathogenesis and symptoms of AR and nAR, providing us with new ideas for the treatment of AR and nAR.

Project description:PurposeNasal cytology is important in the diagnosis and treatment of nasal inflammatory diseases. Treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) according to nasal cytology has not been fully studied. We plan to explore the individualized treatment of AR according to nasal cytology.MethodsNasal cytology from 468 AR patients was examined for inflammatory cell quantity (grade 0-5) and the percentage of neutrophils and eosinophils. Results were subdivided into the following categories: AR(Eos), eosinophil ≥50% of the whole inflammatory cells; AR(Neu), neutrophils ≥90%; AR(Eos/Neu), 10%≤ eosinophil <50%; AR(Low), grade 0/1 inflammatory cell quantity. Nasal cytology-guided treatment was implemented: all AR(Eos) patients (n=22) and half of the AR(Neu) patients (AR[Neu1], n=22) were treated with mometasone furoate spray and oral loratadine. Another half of the AR(Neu) patients (AR[Neu2], n=22) were treated with oral clarithromycin. Visual analog scale (VAS), symptom scores, and nasal cytology were evaluated 2 weeks before and after treatment.ResultsThere were 224/468 (47.86%) AR(Eos), 67/468 (14.32%) AR(Neu), 112/468 (23.93%) AR(Eos/Neu), and 65/468 (13.89%) AR(Low) of the AR patients studied. There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics among these subgroups, except that the nasal blockage score was higher in AR(Eos) patients than in AR(Neu) patients (1.99 vs 1.50, P=0.02). Comparing AR(Eos) patients with AR(Neu1) patients 2 weeks after treatment, nasal symptoms and VAS were significantly lower in AR(Eos) patients, except for nasal blockage symptoms (P<0.05 of nasal itching and sneezing; P<0.01 for nasal secretion, total scores, and VAS). Comparing AR(Neu1) with AR(Neu2) patients, nasal symptoms, and VAS were significantly lower in AR(Neu2), except for nasal blockage and nasal itching symptoms (P<0.05 for nasal secretions, sneezing, total score, and VAS).ConclusionsNasal cytology may have important value in subtyping AR and optimizing AR treatment. Treating neutrophils is very important in AR patients with locally predominant neutrophils.