4.5 Review

Using bacterial biomarkers to identify early indicators of cystic fibrosis pulmonary exacerbation onset

期刊

EXPERT REVIEW OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 197-206

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1586/ERM.10.117

关键词

biomarkers; cystic fibrosis; exhaled breath; inflammation; molecular diagnostics; predictive biomarkers; proteomics; pulmonary exacerbation; quantitative PCR; sputum; trace metals

资金

  1. MRC [G1002033] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [G1002033] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [G1002033] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NHLBI NIH HHS [K02 HL105543, R01 HL098084, R01 HL098084-02] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Acute periods of pulmonary exacerbation are the single most important cause of morbidity in cystic fibrosis patients, and may be associated with a loss of lung function. Intervening prior to the onset of a substantially increased inflammatory response may limit the associated damage to the airways. While a number of biomarker assays based on inflammatory markers have been developed, providing useful and important measures of disease during these periods, such factors are typically only elevated once the process of exacerbation has been initiated. Identifying biomarkers that can predict the onset of pulmonary exacerbation at an early stage would provide an opportunity to intervene before the establishment of a substantial immune response, with major implications for the advancement of cystic fibrosis care. The precise triggers of pulmonary exacerbation remain to be determined; however, the majority of models relate to the activity of microbes present in the patient's lower airways of cystic fibrosis. Advances in diagnostic microbiology now allow for the examination of these complex systems at a level likely to identify factors on which biomarker assays can be based. In this article, we discuss key considerations in the design and testing of assays that could predict pulmonary exacerbations.

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

4.5
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