4.7 Article

Lower Serum IL-10 Is an Independent Predictor of IBS Among Volunteers in Mexico

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 107, 期 5, 页码 747-753

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2011.484

关键词

-

资金

  1. DGAPA, UNAM [IN-211107]
  2. Nycomed

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: Studies suggest that altered immune activation, manifested by an imbalance in anti- and pro-inflammatory cytokine levels, exists in a subgroup of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients. However, similar studies have not been conducted in Latin populations. The objective of this study was to measure serum levels of interleukin (IL)-10 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha in subjects fulfilling symptom criteria for IBS and controls. METHODS: Volunteers (n = 178) from a university population in Mexico City, participated in the study. Of the sample, 34.8% met Rome II criteria for IBS and 65.2% were designated as controls. Serum cytokines were measured by enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay. Analysis of covariance models were used to test main effects between gender, IBS symptoms, and bowel habit subtype to explain the cytokine serum levels. Statistical models were tested using body mass index as a covariate. RESULTS: IL-10 levels were significantly lower in IBS vs. controls (mean (95% confidence interval): 15.6 (14.8, 16.3) vs. 18.6 (17.9, 19.4) pg/ml, P<0.001), while TNF-alpha levels were higher in IBS (20.9 (19.1, 23.0) vs. 17.9 (16.7, 19.3) pg/ml, P=0.010). IBS and female gender were independent predictors for IL-10 (P<0.05). In contrast, female gender was an independent predictor for TNF-alpha. In addition, women with IBS-D had the lowest IL-10 (P<0.001) and highest TNF-alpha (P=0.021) vs. other subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: The lower serum IL-10 in our subjects fulfilling IBS Rome II symptom criteria suggests an altered immune regulation. Further studies are needed to elucidate if a lower serum IL-10 may be useful as a biomarker for IBS in the Mexican population, especially for women with IBS-D.

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

4.7
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