BACKGROUND: Eosinophilia is a marker of corticosteroid responsiveness and risk of exacerbation in asthma; although it has been linked to submucosal matrix deposition, its relationship with other features of airway remodelling is less clear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between airway eosinophilia and airway remodelling. METHODS: Bronchial biopsies from subjects (n = 20 in each group) with mild steroid-naïve asthma, with either low (0-0.45 mm(-2)) ) or high submucosal eosinophil (23.43-46.28 mm(-2) ) counts and healthy controls were assessed for in vivo epithelial damage (using epidermal growth factor receptor staining), mucin expression, airway smooth muscle (ASM) hypertrophy and inflammatory cells within ASM. RESULTS: The proportion of in vivo damaged epithelium was significantly greater (P = 0.02) in the high-eosinophil (27.37%) than the low-eosinophil (4.14%) group. Mucin expression and goblet cell numbers were similar in the two eosinophil groups; however, MUC-2 expression was increased (P = 0.002) in the high-eosinophil group compared with controls. The proportion of submucosa occupied by ASM was higher in both asthma groups (P = 0.021 and P = 0.046) compared with controls. In the ASM, eosinophil and T-lymphocyte numbers were higher (P < 0.05) in the high-eosinophil group than both the low-eosinophil group and the controls, whereas the numbers of mast cells were increased in the high-eosinophil group (P = 0.01) compared with controls. CONCLUSION: Submucosal eosinophilia is a marker (and possibly a cause) of epithelial damage and is related to infiltration of ASM with eosinophils and T lymphocytes, but is unrelated to mucus metaplasia or smooth muscle hypertrophy.
BACKGROUND:Eosinophilia is a marker of corticosteroid responsiveness and risk of exacerbation in asthma; although it has been linked to submucosal matrix deposition, its relationship with other features of airway remodelling is less clear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between airway eosinophilia and airway remodelling. METHODS: Bronchial biopsies from subjects (n = 20 in each group) with mild steroid-naïve asthma, with either low (0-0.45 mm(-2)) ) or high submucosal eosinophil (23.43-46.28 mm(-2) ) counts and healthy controls were assessed for in vivo epithelial damage (using epidermal growth factor receptor staining), mucin expression, airway smooth muscle (ASM) hypertrophy and inflammatory cells within ASM. RESULTS: The proportion of in vivo damaged epithelium was significantly greater (P = 0.02) in the high-eosinophil (27.37%) than the low-eosinophil (4.14%) group. Mucin expression and goblet cell numbers were similar in the two eosinophil groups; however, MUC-2 expression was increased (P = 0.002) in the high-eosinophil group compared with controls. The proportion of submucosa occupied by ASM was higher in both asthma groups (P = 0.021 and P = 0.046) compared with controls. In the ASM, eosinophil and T-lymphocyte numbers were higher (P < 0.05) in the high-eosinophil group than both the low-eosinophil group and the controls, whereas the numbers of mast cells were increased in the high-eosinophil group (P = 0.01) compared with controls. CONCLUSION:Submucosal eosinophilia is a marker (and possibly a cause) of epithelial damage and is related to infiltration of ASM with eosinophils and T lymphocytes, but is unrelated to mucus metaplasia or smooth muscle hypertrophy.
Authors: A M Vignola; G Chiappara; L Siena; A Bruno; R Gagliardo; A M Merendino; B S Polla; A P Arrigo; G Bonsignore; J Bousquet; P Chanez Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Prescott G Woodruff; Gregory M Dolganov; Ronald E Ferrando; Samantha Donnelly; Steven R Hays; Owen D Solberg; Roderick Carter; Hofer H Wong; Peggy S Cadbury; John V Fahy Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2004-01-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Laurent Benayoun; Anne Druilhe; Marie-Christine Dombret; Michel Aubier; Marina Pretolani Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2003-01-16 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ruth H Green; Christopher E Brightling; Susan McKenna; Beverley Hargadon; Debbie Parker; Peter Bradding; Andrew J Wardlaw; Ian D Pavord Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-11-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christopher E Brightling; Peter Bradding; Fiona A Symon; Stephen T Holgate; Andrew J Wardlaw; Ian D Pavord Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-05-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: S T Holgate; D E Davies; P M Lackie; S J Wilson; S M Puddicombe; J L Lordan Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Patrick Flood-Page; Andrew Menzies-Gow; Simon Phipps; Sun Ying; Arun Wangoo; Mara S Ludwig; Neil Barnes; Douglas Robinson; A Barry Kay Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Ian D Pavord; Stephanie Korn; Peter Howarth; Eugene R Bleecker; Roland Buhl; Oliver N Keene; Hector Ortega; Pascal Chanez Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-08-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Elizabeth A Thompson; Brian C Sayers; Ellen E Glista-Baker; Kelly A Shipkowski; Mark D Ihrie; Katherine S Duke; Alexia J Taylor; James C Bonner Journal: Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 6.914
Authors: A C Reis; A L Alessandri; R M Athayde; D A Perez; J P Vago; T V Ávila; T P T Ferreira; A C S de Arantes; D de Sá Coutinho; M A Rachid; L P Sousa; M A Martins; G B Menezes; A G Rossi; M M Teixeira; V Pinho Journal: Cell Death Dis Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 8.469
Authors: Giselle S Magalhaes; Lívia C Barroso; Alesandra C Reis; Maria G Rodrigues-Machado; Juliana F Gregório; Daisy Motta-Santos; Aline C Oliveira; Denise A Perez; Lucíola S Barcelos; Mauro M Teixeira; Robson A S Santos; Vanessa Pinho; Maria Jose Campagnole-Santos Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2018-01-29 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Miriam Peinhaupt; David Roula; Anna Theiler; Miriam Sedej; Rudolf Schicho; Gunther Marsche; Eva M Sturm; Ian Sabroe; Marc E Rothenberg; Akos Heinemann Journal: J Leukoc Biol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 4.962