| Literature DB >> 31337064 |
Stepan Coufal1, Natalie Galanova1, Lukas Bajer1,2, Zuzana Gajdarova1, Dagmar Schierova1,3, Zuzana Jiraskova Zakostelska1, Klara Kostovcikova1, Zuzana Jackova1, Zuzana Stehlikova1, Pavel Drastich2, Helena Tlaskalova-Hogenova1, Miloslav Kverka4,5.
Abstract
Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC-IBD), share three major pathogenetic mechanisms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-gut dysbiosis, gut barrier failure and immune system dysregulation. While clinical differences among them are well known, the underlying mechanisms are less explored. To gain an insight into the IBD pathogenesis and to find a specific biomarker pattern for each of them, we used protein array, ELISA and flow cytometry to analyze serum biomarkers and specific anti-microbial B and T cell responses to the gut commensals. We found that decrease in matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-9 and increase in MMP-14 are the strongest factors discriminating IBD patients from healthy subjects and that PSC-IBD patients have higher levels of Mannan-binding lectin, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases 1 (TIMP-1), CD14 and osteoprotegerin than patients with UC. Moreover, we found that low transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1) is associated with disease relapse and low osteoprotegerin with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) therapy. Patients with CD have significantly decreased antibody and increased T cell response mainly to genera Eubacterium, Faecalibacterium and Bacteroides. These results stress the importance of the gut barrier function and immune response to commensal bacteria and point at the specific differences in pathogenesis of PSC-IBD, UC and CD.Entities:
Keywords: T cells; antibodies; biomarkers; gut barrier; inflammatory bowel disease; microbiota
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31337064 PMCID: PMC6678638 DOI: 10.3390/cells8070719
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cells ISSN: 2073-4409 Impact factor: 6.600
Clinical characteristics of the study participants. CD: Crohn’s disease; HC: healthy control; PSC: primary sclerosing cholangitis; UC: ulcerative colitis.
| HC | PSC | UC | CD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (mean ±SD; years) | 42.5 ± 10.5 | 38.0 ± 11.6 | 39.7 ± 9.8 | 33.5 ± 7.8 |
| Sex (% of males) | 53.6; 15/13 | 74.5; 35/12 | 53.9; 28/24 | 45.0; 9/11 |
| Activity (% of active) | 0.0 | 14.0 | 26.9 | 20.0 |
| Extent of intestinal inflammation | ||||
| none (%; n) | 100.0; 28 | 12.8; 6 | 0.0; 0 | 0.0; 0 |
| partial (%; n) | 0.0; 0 | 10.6; 5 | 38.4; 20 | 45.0; 9 |
| pancolitis (%; n) | 0.0; 0 | 72.3; 34 | 61.5; 32 | 50.0; 10 |
| Therapy | ||||
| Mesalazine (5-ASA) (%; n) | 0.0; 0 | 70.2; 33 | 92.3; 48 | 85.0; 17 |
| Glucocorticoids (%; n) | 0.0; 0 | 38.3; 18 | 21.2; 11 | 15.0; 3 |
| Azathioprine (AZA) (%; n) | 0.0; 0 | 31.9; 15 | 40.4; 21 | 35.0; 7 |
| Anti-TNF-α (%; n) | 0.0; 0 | 0.0; 0 | 38.5; 20 | 45.0; 9 |
| 0.0; 0 | 8.5; 4 | 23.1; 12 | 20.0; 4 |
List of biomarkers quantified in sera of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients and healthy subjects.
| Biomarker | Abbreviation | Manufacturer | Cat. No |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endocrine-Gland-derived Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor * | EG-VEGF | R&D systems | DY1209 |
| Interleukin-8 receptor, alpha * | CXCR1/IL8RA | LifeSpan BioScience | LS-F11255 |
| Osteoprotegerin | OPG | R&D systems | DY805 |
| Tomoregulin 1 | TMEFF1 | LifeSpan BioScience | LS-F52730 |
| Insulin-like Growth Factor 2 * | IGF2 | R&D systems | DY292 |
| Transforming Growth Factor-β1 * | TGF-β1 | R&D systems | DY240 |
| TROY protein | TNFRSF19 | LifeSpan BioScience | LS-F39966 |
| Roundabout Guidance Receptor 4 * | ROBO4 | RayBiotech | ELH-ROBO4 |
| Matrix Metalloproteinase 9 | MMP-9 | R&D systems | DY911 |
| Matrix Metalloproteinase 14 | MMP-14 | R&D systems | DY918 |
| Tissue Inhibitor of Metalloproteinases 1 | TIMP-1 | R&D systems | DY970 |
| Mannan-Binding Lectin | MBL | R&D systems | DY2307 |
| Soluble CD14 | CD14 | R&D systems | DY383 |
| Lipopolysaccharide-Binding Protein | LBP | R&D systems | DY870 |
| Trefoil Factor 3 | TFF-3 | R&D systems | DY4407 |
| Endotoxin-Core Antibody IgM | EndoCab | MyBiosource | MBS9352896 |
| Serum Amyloid A | SAA | HyCult Biotech | HK333 |
| Pre-haptoglobin 2 | Zonulin | MyBiosource | MBS2880564 |
| D-amino-acid oxidase | DAAO | MyBiosource | MBS2886321 |
| Intestinal Fatty Acid-Binding Protein | I-FABP | HyCult Biotech | HK406 |
| Liver Fatty Acid-Binding Protein | L-FABP | HyCult Biotech | HK404 |
* Identified by the array.
Figure 1HC can be easily distinguished from IBD by only seven proteins, but separation of UC and CD is not as clear: (A) Shrunken differences for the seven differently abundant proteins in sera; (B) Heat map and cluster analysis of the chosen proteins. “HC” healthy controls, “UC” ulcerative colitis, “CD” Crohn’s disease.; (C) Composite receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the seven proteins analyzed by ELISA with the training set of samples HC (n = 10) and IBD patients consisting of UC (n = 9), CD (n = 10) and PSC-IBD (n = 10).
Figure 2Cytokine patterns discriminating different forms of IBD from healthy controls. (A) Relative importance for each cytokine for the AUC increment within the best model found by regression analysis and (B) composite ROC curve analysis with the reliable discriminating power (AUC > 0.9). (C) Quantitative plot of the two most efficient discriminating factors analyzed by Mann Whitney test. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Full quantitative comparison across all types of IBD is in Figure S1. Healthy controls (HC, n = 25), IBD patients (n = 85), UC patients (n = 36), CD patients (n = 20), PSC patients without concomitant IBD (PSC; n = 6).
Figure 3Significant differences in serum biomarkers between different types of IBD and activity. (A) Relative importance for each cytokine for the AUC increment within the best model found by regression analysis and (B) composite ROC curve analysis with the reliable discriminating power (AUC > 0.9). (C) Quantitative plot of the two most efficient discriminating factors analyzed by Mann–Whitney test. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. HC (n = 25), UC patients (n = 36), CD patients (n = 20), PSC-IBD patients (n = 32), Remission (n = 66), Relapse (n = 18).
Figure 4Differences in antibody response among patients with different forms of IBD and healthy controls. (A) Comparison of specific anti-bacterial antibody response. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences. (B) Correlation matrix showing Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. HC (n = 27), PSC-IBD (n = 41), UC (n = 52), CD (n = 20).
Figure 5Circulating microbiota-reactive T cells react more strongly in CD patients than in any other form of IBD as analyzed by the Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparison test vs. HC group. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. HC (n = 19), PSC-IBD (n = 9), UC (n = 15), CD (n = 17).