| Literature DB >> 23800166 |
Anne Liese Smylie1, Gordon Broderick, Henrique Fernandes, Shirin Razdan, Zachary Barnes, Fanny Collado, Connie Sol, Mary Ann Fletcher, Nancy Klimas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Though potentially linked to the basic physiology of stress response we still have no clear understanding of Gulf War Illness (GWI), a debilitating condition presenting complex immune, endocrine and neurological symptoms. Here we compared male (n = 20) and female (n = 10) veterans with GWI separately against their healthy counterparts (n = 21 male, n = 9 female) as well as subjects with chronic fatigue syndrome/ myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) (n = 12 male, n = 10 female).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23800166 PMCID: PMC3698072 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2172-14-29
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Immunol ISSN: 1471-2172 Impact factor: 3.615
Linear classification models separating male from female subjects within each diagnostic group
| mHC vs fHC at T0 | Il-2 T0 | −0.81 | 19 | 2 | 21 | True male | 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.78 | 0.90 | 0.78 |
| Il-23 T0 | 1.14 | 2 | 7 | 9 | True Female | ||||||
| mHC vs fHC at T0-T2 | Il-2 T1 | −0.72 | 19 | 2 | 21 | True male | 0.90 | 0.95 | 0.80 | 0.90 | 0.89 |
| Il-5 T1 | −0.59 | 1 | 8 | 9 | True Female | ||||||
| Il-23 T0 | 1.24 | ||||||||||
| mCFS vs fCFS at T0 | Il-8 T0 | 1.00 | 7 | 5 | 12 | True male | 0.68 | 0.78 | 0.62 | 0.58 | 0.80 |
| 2 | 8 | 10 | True Female | ||||||||
| mCFS vs fCFS at T0-T2 | TNFb T2 | −0.91 | 8 | 4 | 12 | True male | 0.77 | 0.89 | 0.69 | 0.67 | 0.90 |
| Il-6 T1 | −0.83 | 1 | 9 | 10 | True Female | ||||||
| Il-8 T0 | 1.75 | ||||||||||
| mGWI vs fGWI at T0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | ||||||
| mGWI vs fGWI at T0-T2 | Il-2 T2 | −1.51 | 19 | 1 | 20 | True male | 0.87 | 0.86 | 0.88 | 0.95 | 0.70 |
| IL-1a T0 | 0.60 | 3 | 7 | 10 | True Female | ||||||
| IL-1a T1 | −1.08 | ||||||||||
| Il-6 T1 | 0.84 | ||||||||||
| Il-10 T1 | 1.36 |
Performance values correspond to leave-one-out cross validation results.
Figure 1Gender differences in immune signatures among healthy controls. Immune cytokine expression of male and female healthy controls was compared using a step-wise method across all time points (rest, peak activity, and recovery). Red arrows indicate a negative contribution of a particular cytokine in female healthy controls compared to males and vice versa for black arrows. Arrow line thickness is proportional to the magnitude of the standardized canonical coefficients. Changes in IL-23 were a dominant factor at all time points, in particular when cast against concurrent levels of IL-2 and IL-5 expression under challenge.
Linear classification models separating healthy male subjects from male subjects with GWI or CFS
| GWI vs HC males at T0 | Il-10 T0 | −1.32 | 16 | 5 | 21 | True HC male | 0.73 | 0.73 | 0.74 | 0.76 | 0.70 |
| Il-13 T0 | 1.23 | 6 | 14 | 20 | True GWI male | ||||||
| Il-23 T0 | 0.53 | ||||||||||
| GWI vs HC males at T1 | True HC male | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||||
| True GWI male | |||||||||||
| GWI vs HC males at T2 | Il-1b T2 | −0.59 | 14 | 7 | 21 | True HC male | 0.73 | 0.78 | 0.70 | 0.67 | 0.80 |
| Il-10 T2 | −1.10 | 4 | 16 | 20 | True GWI male | ||||||
| Il-13 T2 | 1.02 | ||||||||||
| Il-23 T2 | 0.62 | ||||||||||
| GWI vs HC males at T0-T2 | Il-15 T2 | −0.64 | 17 | 4 | 21 | True HC male | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.85 |
| Il-10 T0 | −1.34 | 3 | 17 | 20 | True GWI male | ||||||
| Il-13 T0 | 1.16 | ||||||||||
| Il-23 T0 | 0.57 | ||||||||||
| IFNg T1 | 0.55 | ||||||||||
| CFS vs HC males at T0 | Il-23 T0 | 1.00 | 16 | 5 | 21 | True HC male | 0.76 | 0.84 | 0.64 | 0.76 | 0.75 |
| 3 | 9 | 12 | True CFS male | ||||||||
| CFS vs HC males at T1 | Il-2 T1 | 1.84 | 16 | 5 | 21 | True HC male | 0.82 | 0.94 | 0.69 | 0.76 | 0.92 |
| Il-6 T1 | −0.66 | 1 | 11 | 12 | True CFS male | ||||||
| Il-10 T1 | −0.75 | ||||||||||
| Il-15 T1 | −0.66 | ||||||||||
| CFS vs HC males at T2 | Il-23 T2 | 1.00 | 16 | 5 | 21 | True HC male | 0.73 | 0.80 | 0.62 | 0.76 | 0.67 |
| 4 | 8 | 12 | True CFS male | ||||||||
| CFS vs HC males at T0-T2 | Il-2 T2 | 0.99 | 18 | 3 | 21 | True HC male | 0.85 | 0.90 | 0.77 | 0.86 | 0.83 |
| Il-10 T2 | 1.37 | 2 | 10 | 12 | True CFS male | ||||||
| Il-23 T2 | 0.85 | ||||||||||
| Il-10 T1 | −2.18 | ||||||||||
| Il-12p70 T1 | −0.93 |
Performance values correspond to leave-one-out cross validation results.
Figure 2Cytokine signatures separating illness groups in male subjects. Immune cytokine expression patterns separating of male GWI, CFS and healthy control subjects identified using a step-wise selection method across all time points (rest, peak activity, and recovery). Red arrows indicate a negative contribution, vice versa for black arrows. Arrow line thickness is proportional to the magnitude of standardized canonical coefficients. NK cell promoters (IL-12 or 15) are observed in both illnesses, as are IL-10 and 23. Stronger IL-2 expression was characteristic of CFS while stronger IL-13 contribution was indicative of GWI (Table 2 and Additional file 2: Table S5).
Figure 3Cytokine signatures separating illness groups in female subjects. Immune cytokine expression patterns separating of female GWI, CFS and healthy control subjects identified using a step-wise selection method across all time points (rest, peak activity, and recovery). Red arrows indicate a negative contribution, vice versa for black arrows. Arrow line thickness is proportional to the magnitude of standardized canonical coefficients. While decreased IL-23 expression in the context of increased IL-5 levels provided strong separation of GWI from healthy controls the signal for CFS was much weaker and required relaxation of the constraints on cross-correlation between cytokines.
Linear classification models separating healthy female subjects from female subjects with GWI or CFS
| GWI vs HC females at T0 | True HC female | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||||
| True GWI female | |||||||||||
| GWI vs HC females at T1 | Il-5 T1 | 1.20 | 8 | 1 | 9 | True HC female | 0.84 | 0.80 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.80 |
| Il-17 T1 | −1.03 | 2 | 8 | 10 | True GWI female | ||||||
| GWI vs HC females at T2 | Il-23 T2 | −1.00 | 8 | 1 | 9 | True HC female | 0.79 | 0.73 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.70 |
| 3 | 7 | 10 | True GWI female | ||||||||
| GWI vs HC females at T0-T2 | Il-23 T2 | −1.00 | 8 | 1 | 9 | True HC female | 0.84 | 0.80 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.80 |
| Il-5 T1 | 0.99 | 2 | 8 | 10 | True GWI female | ||||||
| CFS vs HC females at T0 | Il-4 T0 | −0.84 | 5 | 4 | 9 | True HC female | 0.74 | 0.83 | 0.69 | 0.56 | 0.90 |
| Il-17 T0 | 0.77 | 1 | 9 | 10 | True CFS female | ||||||
| CFS vs HC females at T1 | Il-2 T1 | −1.00 | 4 | 5 | 9 | True HC female | 0.63 | 0.67 | 0.62 | 0.44 | 0.80 |
| 2 | 8 | 10 | True CFS female | ||||||||
| CFS vs HC females at T2 | Il-2 T2 | −1.00 | 3 | 6 | 9 | True HC female | 0.68 | 1.00 | 0.63 | 0.33 | 1.00 |
| 0 | 10 | 10 | True CFS female | ||||||||
| CFS vs HC females at T0-T2 | Il-2 T1 | −1.00 | 4 | 5 | 9 | True HC female | 0.68 | 0.80 | 0.64 | 0.44 | 0.90 |
| 1 | 9 | 10 | True CFS female | ||||||||
| CFS vs HC females at T0-T2 | IL-17_T1 | 1.00 | 8 | 1 | 9 | True HC female | 0.79 | 0.73 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.70 |
| IL-10_T2 | −1.68 | 3 | 7 | 10 | True CFS female |
Performance values correspond to leave-one-out cross validation results.