| Literature DB >> 21682927 |
Allison Sutherland1, Mervyn Thomas, Roslyn A Brandon, Richard B Brandon, Jeffrey Lipman, Benjamin Tang, Anthony McLean, Ranald Pascoe, Gareth Price, Thu Nguyen, Glenn Stone, Deon Venter.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sepsis is a complex immunological response to infection characterized by early hyper-inflammation followed by severe and protracted immunosuppression, suggesting that a multi-marker approach has the greatest clinical utility for early detection, within a clinical environment focused on Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) differentiation. Pre-clinical research using an equine sepsis model identified a panel of gene expression biomarkers that define the early aberrant immune activation. Thus, the primary objective was to apply these gene expression biomarkers to distinguish patients with sepsis from those who had undergone major open surgery and had clinical outcomes consistent with systemic inflammation due to physical trauma and wound healing.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21682927 PMCID: PMC3219023 DOI: 10.1186/cc10274
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Crit Care ISSN: 1364-8535 Impact factor: 9.097
Figure 1A schematic of SeptiCyte lab development. Summary of the development pathway of the SeptiCyte Lab test from high throughput pre-clinical gene expression interrogation in an equine sepsis model through to clinical evaluation on a more dynamic platform better suited to the assessment of smaller biomarker panels.
Figure 2Composition of gene expression biomarkers in the SeptiCyte Lab test. Based on longitudinal sampling in pre-clinical trials using an equine sepsis model, molecular biomarkers related to genes directly involved in innate and early adaptive immune function, cell cycling, differentiation, extracellular remodelling, as well as immune modulation.
Baseline characteristics of the study population
| Characteristic | HC ( | Sepsis ( | PS ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 38 | 60 | 68 | NS |
| Range | 21 to 60 | 38 to 82 | 51 to 86 | NS |
| 50 | 55 | 64 | NS | |
| 100 | 94 | 100 | NS |
* Statistical comparisons made between Sepsis and PS
Figure 3Principal Component Analysis for preliminary HGU133 Plus 2.0 array studies. A strong separation between HC (referred to as "Control") and MI groups and a moderate separation between PS and sepsis participants was noted (A), where all but one sepsis sample is below the PS threshold. Moreover, when GEO control samples were included in these analyses, control gene expression profiles were largely independent of the sepsis group (B).
AUC ROC results comparing diagnostic performance between control and various clinical cohorts
| Comparison | Biomarker Set | Mean | SD‡ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MI Vs HC | 42 | 0.921 | 0.0568 | < 0.002 |
| MI Vs HC | 7 | 0.862 | 0.0640 | < 0.002 |
| Sepsis Vs HC | 42 | 0.938 | 0.0557 | < 0.002 |
| Sepsis Vs HC | 7 | 0.910 | 0.0479 | < 0.002 |
| PS Vs HC | 42 | 0.891 | 0.0687 | < 0.002 |
| PS Vs HC | 7 | 0.833 | 0.0661 | < 0.002 |
| Sepsis Vs PS | 42 | 0.921 | 0.0568 | < 0.002 |
| Sepsis Vs PS | 7 | 0.862 | 0.0640 | < 0.002 |
‡ Standard Deviation; *Statistical significance is assumed when P < 0.05. Based on 500 random permutations the minimum possible P-value is < 0.002
§ HC -- Healthy Control; MI -- Mixed Inflammation; PS-Post Surgical
Figure 4AUC ROC permutation comparisons and distribution graphs between mixed inflammation and Healthy Control cohorts. A and B display results for the AUC ROC following 500 iterations using the full gene set and distribution results when cohort labels are removed, respectively. In C and D this analysis was repeated using a diagnostic signature that is operating with a set of seven genes, where minimal change in performance was noted.
Figure 5AUC ROC permutation comparisons and distribution graphs between PS and Sepsis cohorts. Permutation analyses were conducted using 500 iterations, where the data was randomly split into training and validation sets to evaluate diagnostic performance. Average AUC ROC for gene sets of 42 and 7 were determined to be 0.92 ± 0.0586 and 0.862 ± 0.0640, respectively. When labels associated with cohort status were removed, the AUC distribution was on average 0.498 indicating that there was no inherent bias in this methodology.