4.6 Article

Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor expression in induced sputum and bronchial mucosa in asthma and COPD

期刊

THORAX
卷 64, 期 8, 页码 671-676

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thx.2008.108290

关键词

-

资金

  1. Asthma UK
  2. MedImmune
  3. DOH Clinical Scientist award
  4. Wellcome Senior Clinical Fellowship
  5. Asthma UK [05/058] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) has been implicated as an important mediator in the pathogenesis of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the expression of GM-CSF and its receptor in airway samples in asthma and COPD across disease severity needs to be further defined. Methods: Sputum GM-CSF was measured in 18 control subjects, 45 subjects with asthma and 47 subjects with COPD. Enumeration of GM-CSF+ cells in the bronchial submucosa and airway smooth muscle bundle was performed in 29 control subjects, 36 subjects with asthma and 10 subjects with COPD. Results: The proportion of subjects with measurable GMCSF in the sputum was raised in those with moderate (7/14) and severe (11/18) asthma, and in those with COPD GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) stage II (7/16), III (8/17) and IV (7/14) compared with controls (1/18) and those with mild asthma (0/13); p = 0.001. The sputum GM-CSF concentration was correlated with the sputum eosinophilia in subjects with moderate to severe asthma (r(s)= 0.41; p = 0.018). The median (interquartile range) GM-CSF+ and GM-CSFR+ cells/mm(2) of submucosa was increased in severe asthma (1.4 (3.0) and 2.1 (8.4)) compared with those with mild to moderate asthma (0 (2.5) and 1.1 (5)) and healthy controls (0 (0.5) and 0 (1.6)), (p = 0.004 and p = 0.02, respectively). Conclusions: The findings support a potential role for GM-CSF in asthma and COPD and suggest that overexpression of GM-CSF in sputum and the bronchial mucosa is a particular feature of severe asthma.

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

4.6
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