Assessment of mucin-related gene alterations following treatment with rebamipide ophthalmic suspension in Sjögren's syndrome-associated dry eyes.

Ocular surface mucins are thought to play vital roles in maintaining the homeostasis of the pre-ocular surface tear film. We performed ocular surface tests with impression cytology to assess the expression levels of mucin-related genes on the ocular surface in healthy eyes. In addition, we investigated alterations in mucin-related gene expression secondary to treatment with rebamipide ophthalmic suspension in patients with Sjögren's syndrome-associated dry eyes (SS-DE). Thirty-three healthy individuals (control group) and 13 patients from our hospital with SS-DE were enrolled. Impression cytology was performed using Schirmer's test paper for RNA sampling. The mRNA levels of SAM-pointed domain-containing ETS-like factor (SPDEF), mucin 5AC (MUC5AC), and mucin 16 (MUC16) were determined using a real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. The ocular surface test was performed once for the control group, and at baseline as well as 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after treatment in the Sjögren's syndrome-associated dry eyes group. mRNA levels of SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 were not significantly different between the control and SS-DE groups before rebamipide ophthalmic suspension treatment. SPDEF mRNA levels in control subjects were significantly correlated with levels of MUC5AC. Among SS-DE patients, SPDEF mRNA levels were significantly increased at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after treatment compared with baseline levels. MUC16 mRNA levels were significantly decreased from baseline levels at 4 and 8 weeks post-treatment. Ocular surface test using impression cytology is a clinically useful tool for assessing mucous conditions on the ocular surface and can be used to determine the effects of instillation treatment with eye drops that affect mucin production at the ocular surface.

Introduction

Sjögren’s syndrome is an autoimmune inflammatory disorder that leads to the development of dry mouth and eyes through functional impairment of the exocrine glands, specifically those that produce saliva and tears [1]. Patients with Sjögren’s syndrome-associated dry eyes (SS-DE) exhibit symptoms such as dryness, discomfort, ocular irritation, and visual disturbance. SS-DE is accompanied by tear deficiency, increased tear film osmolarity [2,3], and ocular surface inflammation. The inflammation is caused by inflammatory cell infiltration, activation of the ocular surface epithelium with increased expression of cytokines and chemokines [4], and an increased concentration of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in the tear fluid [5]. In recent studies, mucins have been implicated in the pathogenesis of dry eye disease [6,7].

Mucins are high molecular weight glycoproteins that contain a central region formed of tandem repeats and O-type carbohydrate chains bound to core proteins. In humans, 20 mucin genes (MUC1, MUC2, MUC3A, MUC3B, MUC4, MUC5AC, MUC5B, MUC6 to MUC13, and MUC15 to MUC19) are categorized based on their amino acid sequences [8]. The following mucins are found on the ocular surface and are involved in moisture retention and homeostatic maintenance: MUC5AC is a gel-forming mucin, MUC1, MUC4, and MUC16 are membrane-associated mucins, and MUC7 is a soluble mucin [9,10].

On the ocular surface, MUC5AC is secreted by goblet cells. The differentiation of goblet cells is controlled by SAM-pointed domain-containing ETS-like factor (SPDEF), a transcription factor also involved in the differentiation of goblet cells in the airway and intestinal epithelia. Furthermore, SPDEF is a key regulator of goblet cell hyperplasia and mucous hypersecretion in mucosal tissues [11-14]. A potential role for SPDEF in the pathophysiology of dry eye disease has been reported in a SPDEF knockout mouse model [15]. MUC16, a different mucin expressed in the ocular surface glycocalyx, has been shown to interact with the actin cytoskeleton in the microplicae of the ocular surface epithelium and to provide an anti-adhesive barrier [16,17]. Moreover, the morphological characteristics of the ocular surface in patients with dry eye disease are thought to include a reduction in goblet cells, squamous metaplasia, and keratinization of the ocular surface epithelium [18]. As a result of these morphological changes, the mucins expressed on the ocular surface are thought to be altered [6]. Therefore, assessments of mucin and mucin-related factors on the ocular surface are crucial clinical evaluations for determining the severity of dry eye disease.

Two novel eye drops that treat dry eye by promoting mucous secretion on the ocular surface, diquafosol and rebamipide, were launched in Japan in 2010 and 2012, respectively. These eye drops reportedly improve the subjective symptoms of dry eye [19,20]. Diquafosol is a P2Y2 receptor agonist and promotes mucin secretion from conjunctival goblet cells, as well as fluid secretion from conjunctival epithelial cells that express P2Y2 receptors at the cellular membrane [21,22]. Rebamipide is a novel synthesized quinolinone approved for the treatment of gastric ulcers and gastritis as an oral therapeutic drug, and to treat dry eye as an ophthalmic suspension. Rebamipide reportedly increases the number of goblet cells in the normal rabbit conjunctiva [23] and the lid wiper [24, 25] of human conjunctiva [26].

The primary objective of this study was to clarify the normal range of mucin-associated gene expression levels in the ocular surface of healthy volunteers using a cross-sectional analysis. To do so, we performed an ocular surface test using impression cytology with Schirmer’s filter paper to assess mucin-related gene expression on the ocular surface in healthy subjects and patients with SS-DE. The normal range was by the calculated mean values and 95% confidence intervals for each mucin-related gene expression level.

Our secondary objective was to investigate potential treatment-induced alterations of mucin-related gene expression levels in SS-DE patients. To do so, we evaluated alterations in SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 gene expression levels in SS-DE patients at three follow-up points after treatment with rebamipide. The alteration of mucin-related gene expression levels at each observational point was evaluated in comparison with baseline values.

Materials and methods

Subjects

This prospective, cross-sectional study was approved by the institutional review board of the Nihon University Itabashi Hospital, Tokyo, Japan (RK-150310-10, UMIN: 000017620) and adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The control group consisted of 33 healthy adult volunteers (7 men and 26 women) without ocular disorders and who did not wear contact lenses. Thirteen patients being treated at the hospital were included in the SS-DE group. The inclusion criterion was a diagnosis with Sjögren’s syndrome according to the revised Japanese criteria (1999); these included having a baseline Schirmer I test score < 5 mm as well as staining positive for fluorescein [27]. The exclusion criteria for SS-DE patients were as follows: (1) ocular surface disease (infectious blepharitis, lagophthalmos, blepharospasm, iritis, and conjunctival chalasis) other than dry eye; (2) treatment with topical anti-inflammatory drugs, such as corticosteroids or immunosuppressants; (3) the presence of punctal plugs or a history of surgical punctal occlusion; (4) a history of ocular surface surgery during the 12 months prior to study initiation, or intraocular surgery during the 3 months prior to study initiation; (5) use of contact lenses; and (6) previous systemic treatment for Sjögren’s syndrome.

We prescribed a 4× daily dose of rebamipide ophthalmic suspension (Mucosta® ophthalmic suspension unit dose 2%; Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) to SS-DE patients. Clinical outcomes and mucin-related gene expression on the ocular surface of these patients were monitored for 12 weeks.

Clinical examination of patients with dry eye

Both eyes of SS-DE patients were examined. All SS-DE patients underwent the tear breakup time test (TBUT) and fluorescein staining score evaluation, at baseline as well as 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after the initiation of rebamipide instillation therapy.

For fluorescein staining, one drop of saline solution was dropped onto the tip of the fluorescein test paper (FLUORES® Ocular Examination Test paper 0.7 mg, AYUMI Pharmaceutical Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), and then after application of fluorescein dye using fluorescein paper into the lower conjunctival sac, TBUT and fluorescein staining scores were evaluated under cobalt blue light using a slit lamp biomicroscopy (Haag-Streit Original Slit Lamp 900®BQ, Haag-Streit AG, Bern, Switzerland).

TBUT was measured as the time in seconds until the first appearance of a dark area in the fluorescein-stained precorneal tear film when the eye was kept open. The measurement was taken three times using a stopwatch, and the average time was calculated. The normal range for TBUT was considered to be 5 seconds or longer.

For the calculation of fluorescein staining score, the van Bijesterveld scoring system [28] was used. To assess epithelial damage, the temporal bulbar conjunctiva, cornea, and nasal bulbar conjunctiva were evaluated with a score of 0 (none), 1 (mild), 2 (moderate), and 3 (severe) in each area. The sum of the scores from the three areas was designated as the fluorescein staining score (Fig 1A).

Fig 1

Dry eye clinical examination.

(a) Criteria for determination of the fluorescein staining score. All sub-scores for the nasal and temporal bulbar conjunctiva and the cornea were summed, and the value designated as the total score. (b) Impression cytology was performed to obtain the sample from the upper palpebral conjunctiva.

SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 gene expression levels on the ocular surface

Sample collection

Impression cytology with filter paper for Schirmer’s test was used to obtain RNA samples for real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) analysis [29,30]. The right eye of each participant in the control group and both eyes of SS-DE patients were analyzed. Impression cytology was performed at baseline in the control group, and at baseline as well as 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks in the SS-DE group.

Impression cytology was performed using the following technique: the 5 mm tip of Schirmer’s test paper (Tear Production Measuring Strips, AYUMI Pharmaceutical Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) was placed at the center of the upper palpebral conjunctiva (Fig 1B) for 5 seconds using Beaupre cilia forceps (Inami & Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan). The test paper was then removed and preserved in microtubes containing RNAlater RNA Stabilization Reagent (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) at 4°C until mRNA extraction.

Real-time RT-PCR

Total RNA from each Schirmer’s test paper was extracted using the RNeasy® Mini Kit (Qiagen) following the manufacturer’s instructions. cDNA was then synthesized using a High-Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription Kit (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

To detect the expression of SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 mRNA, real-time RT-PCR was performed using a commercial PCR master mix (TaqMan Universal PCR Master Mix; Thermo Fisher) and predesigned primers: SPDEF (Hs01026050_ml), MUC5AC (Hs00873651_m1), and MUC16 (Hs01065189_m1; Thermo Fisher). Samples were analyzed using the Step One Plus real-time PCR system (Thermo Fisher), and comparative threshold (Ct) values were obtained. Target Ct values were normalized to those of glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) (Hs99999905_m1) from the same sample. The gene expression data were analyzed using the ΔΔCt method.

Statistical analysis

The mRNA expression levels of SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 are presented as mean with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The baseline associations in control group between participant’s age and mucin-related gene expression, including SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 mRNA levels, were assessed by partial correlation coefficient. The expression levels of mucin-related genes between men and women in the control group were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Thirteen control subjects were age- and sex-matched to SS-DE patients, with random selection of controls if more than one matched with an SS-DE patient. Results of gene expression levels at baseline were compared between the matched SS-DE and control patients using the Mann-Whitney U-test. In the SS-DE group, comparisons between ration changes from baseline at baseline and 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks after rebamipide treatment were analyzed using mixed-effects models. Because the patients with SS-DE may have a bilateral difference in disease severity, both eyes were analyzed to prevent a possible selection bias. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. IBM SPSS Advanced Statistics software version 22 (IBM Corp.; Armonk, NY, USA) was used for statistical analysis.

Results

Expression levels of SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 mRNA in the control group

The demographic characteristics of the 33 participants in the control group are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Demographic and clinical characteristics of participants in the control group.

		Control group
Subjects (eyes)		33
Age (years) (mean ± SD)		61.8 ± 17.0
Sex (men: women)		7: 26
Mucin-related gene expression (relative expression levels)	SPDEF [mean (95% CI)]	4.2 (2.8–5.6)
	MUC5AC [mean (95% CI)]	1.9 (0.9–3.0)
	MUC16 [mean (95% CI)]	0.4 (0.3–0.6)

CI, confidence interval; SPDEF, SAM-pointed domain-containing ETS-like factor.

In the control group, we investigated the relationship between the age of the participants and expression levels of mucin-related genes on the ocular surface using the partial correlation method. There were no mucin-related genes that significantly correlated with the age of the participants (Table 2). Among the mucin-related genes, a significant correlation was found between MUC5AC and SPDEF mRNA expression levels (Fig 2 and Table 2). Additionally, we compared the mucin-related gene expression levels between male and female participants. MUC5AC and MUC16 mRNA expression levels in men were significantly higher than in women (Table 3). However, their SPDEF mRNA expression levels were not statistically different.

Table 2

Partial correlation coefficient between age and mucin-related gene expression levels in the control group.

	MUC5AC	MUC16	SPDEF	Age
MUC5AC	1
MUC16	0.058	1
SPDEF	0.733**	0.328	1
Age	-0.089	0.098	-0.067	1

** p = 2.7E-06.

Fig 2

Correlation between SPDEF and MUC5AC mRNA expression levels in the control group.

SPDEF mRNA expression levels were significantly correlated with those of MUC5AC. ρ = 0.791, p < 0.001, Spearman’s correlation coefficient.

Table 3

Comparison of mucin-related gene expression levels between male and female controls.

	Male controls	Female controls	p-value
Age [years (mean ± SD)]	54.7 ± 19.4	63.7 ± 16.1	0.243
MUC5AC mRNA [relative expression levels (mean ± SD)]	4.7 ± 5.3	1.2 ± 1.2	0.038
MUC16 mRNA [relative expression levels (mean ± SD)]	0.76 ± 0.34	0.35 ± 0.22	0.004
SPDEF mRNA expression levels [relative expression levels (mean ± SD)]	7.4 ± 6.3	3.4 ± 2.6	0.094

Alteration of clinical test results and SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 mRNA expression levels on the ocular surface by rebamipide instillation in the SS-DE group

The demographic and clinical characteristics of the SS-DE group are shown in Table 4. The SS-DE group included 13 patients, all women; the mean age was 59.5 ± 10.6 years (mean ± SD). Sjögren’s syndrome classification levels (primary versus secondary), and the systemic anti-inflammatory treatments for the primary disease of patients with secondary SS-DE, are also shown in Table 4. The rebamipide eye drops were supplemented with sodium hyaluronate in three patients, and with artificial tears and sodium hyaluronate in one; no additional medications were added for nine patients. The compositions of the eye drops were not changed during the observation period. In the SS-DE group, expression levels of SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 mRNA were 5.0 (1.9–8.2) [mean (95% CI)], 3.0 (1.2–4.9), and 0.7 (0.5–1.0), respectively. There were no statistical differences between the baseline levels for SS-DE patients and the age- and sex-matched controls (Table 4).

Table 4

Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with Sjögren’s syndrome.

		SS-DE patients	Age- and sex-matched controls	p-value
Subjects (cases)		13	13
Age [years, (mean ± SD)]		59.5 ± 10.6	57.5 ± 16.0	0.166
Sex (male: female)		0: 13	0: 13
Immunological disease		Primary SS: 3 cases
		Secondary SS: 10 cases (RA: 5 cases, SLE: 2 cases, others: 3 cases)
Systemic anti-inflammatory treatment for primary disease patients with secondary SS		Prednisolone: 3 cases
		Mizoribine: 2 cases
		Salazosulfapyridine: 1 case
		Non: 4 cases
Baseline mucin-related gene expression (relative expression levels)	SPDEF [mean (95% CI)]	5.0 (1.9–8.2)	3.6 (2.1–5.1)	0.489
	MUC5AC [mean (95% CI)]	3.0 (1.2–4.9)	1.1 (0.6–1.6)	0.522
	MUC16 [mean (95% CI)]	0.7 (0.5–1.0)	0.4 (0.2–0.5)	0.106

RA, rheumatoid arthritis; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus; SS, Sjögren’s syndrome; SS-DE, Sjögren’s syndrome-associated dry eyes.

CI, confidence interval; SPDEF, SAM-pointed domain-containing ETS-like factor.

Regarding clinical examination, the fluorescein staining scores at 4 and 8 weeks after the initiation of rebamipide treatment were significantly decreased compared with baseline (p = 0.0005 and p < 0.0001 at 4 and 8 weeks, respectively; mixed-effects models; Fig 3A). In contrast, TBUT results at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after the initiation of rebamipide treatment were significantly increased compared with baseline (p = 0.0005, 0.0383, and 0.0020 at 2, 4, and 8 weeks, respectively; mixed-effects models; Fig 3B).

Fig 3

Change in fluorescein staining scores and tear breakup time (TBUT) at follow-up after rebamipide instillation treatment in SS-DE patients.

Least-square means (LS means ± 95% confidence interval) ware plotted for fluorescein staining scores and tear breakup times (TBUT) at each observation point. (a) Fluorescein staining scores at 4 and 8 weeks were significantly decreased compared with baseline values. (b) TBUT at 2 and 8 weeks were significantly increased compared with baseline levels. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01, mixed-effects models.

When SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 mRNA expression levels on the ocular surface of patients were examined, we found that SPDEF mRNA expression levels at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after the initiation of rebamipide treatment had increased significantly (p = 0.0350, 0.0012, and 0.0069 at 2, 4, and 8 weeks, respectively, mixed-effects models; Fig 4A), but not at 12 weeks. Additionally, MUC5AC mRNA expression levels were significantly increased at the 8-week time-point (p = 0.0330, mixed-effects model; (Fig 4B). In contrast, MUC16 mRNA expression levels at both 4 and 8 weeks after the initiation of rebamipide treatment had decreased significantly (p = 0.0358 and 0.0050 at 4 and 8 weeks, respectively, mixed-effects models; Fig 4C).

Fig 4

Change of SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 mRNA expression levels at follow-up points after rebamipide instillation treatment in SS-DE patients.

Least-square means (LS means ± 95% confidence interval) ware plotted for relative expression levels of SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 mRNA at each observation point. (a) SPDEF mRNA expression levels were significantly increased at 2, 4, and 8 weeks compared with baseline values. (b) MUC5AC mRNA expression levels were significantly increased at 8 weeks compared with those at baseline. (c) MUC16 mRNA expression levels were significantly decreased at 4 and 8 weeks compared with those at baseline. * p < 0.05, mixed-effects models.

In accordance with an evaluation of ration changes from baseline in SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 mRNA expression levels by mixed-effect model analysis, the 4-, and 8-week time-point was the observation periods with significant alterations in SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 mRNA expression levels in SS-DE patients under rebamipide treatment. We compared relative expression levels of SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 mRNA in SS-DE group with those of the age- and sex-matched control group. At week 4, MUC5AC mRNA expression levels in the SS-DE group were significantly increased compared with those in age- and sex-matched controls (Fig 5A). In contrast, there were no significant differences in SPDEF and MUC16 mRNA expression between the SS-DE and age- and sex-matched control groups (Fig 5B and 5C). At week 8, there was no significant difference between the SS-DE and control groups for all mRNA expression levels.

Fig 5

Mucin-related gene expression levels in the SS-DE and age- and sex-matched control groups at 4 weeks after the initiation of rebamipide instillation treatment.

Mucin-related gene expression levels in the SS-DE at 4 weeks after the initiation of rebamipide treatment were compared with those in age- and sex-matched control groups. MUC5AC mRNA expression levels in the SS-DE group were significantly higher than in the control group. (a) MUC5AC mRNA expression; (b) SPDEF mRNA expression; (c) MUC16 mRNA expression. * p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U-test. SS-DE, Sjögren’s syndrome-associated dry eyes.

A representative patient is shown in Fig 6—a 77-year-old woman with SS-DE suffering from severe dryness and foreign body sensation in both eyes. She received instilled sodium hyaluronate ophthalmic solution 0.3% and rebamipide ophthalmic suspension 2%, 4 times daily in each eye. At the baseline examination, the fluorescein score was 4 points for both eyes. Photographs of her right eye with fluorescein staining are shown in Fig 4A–4D. TBUT of the right and left eyes at baseline were both 2 sec. The measured expression levels of SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 mRNA in the right eye are shown in Fig 4E. Over 8 weeks of follow-up, her superficial punctate keratitis improved and there were increased expression levels of SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 mRNA.

Fig 6

A 77-year-old women with SS-DE disease.

Photographs of cornea with fluorescein staining at baseline (a), and 4 (b), 8 (c), and 12 (d) weeks. (e), expression levels of SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 mRNA in the right eye measured by reversed transcription-polymerase chain reaction.

Discussion

In this study, we investigated the utility of the ocular surface test, which clinically evaluates mucin-related gene (SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16) expression levels on the ocular surface in patients with dry eye. Impression cytology is thought to be a suitable tool for obtaining genetic information on ocular surface biomarkers [31,32]. Our study found the following: 1) expression levels of SPDEF mRNA were significantly correlated with those of MUC5AC mRNA in healthy controls; 2) expression levels of SPDEF mRNA were significantly increased at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after rebamipide ophthalmic suspension treatment in SS-DE patients; and 3) expression levels of MUC16 mRNA were significantly decreased at 4 and 8 weeks after rebamipide ophthalmic suspension treatment. In addition, we found significant improvement over time in the fluorescein staining scores (4 and 8 weeks post-treatment) and in TBUT (2, 4, and 8 weeks post-treatment).

In the control group, mucin-related gene expression levels were not correlated with participants’ age, implying that age does not affect the results of ocular surface tests for mucin. In contrast, MUC5AC and MUC16 mRNA levels were significantly higher in men than in women. In a previous report, Corrales et al. did not find sex-specific differences in MUC1, MUC2, MUC4, MUC5AC, and MUC7 gene expression levels in normal human conjunctiva [33]. However, their finding of significantly higher conjunctival goblet cell density from conjunctival impression cytology samples in men than in women [34,35] is consistent with our results of MUC5AC gene expression.

We observed a significant correlation between SPDEF and MUC5AC mRNA levels in our control group. SPDEF is thought to be a transcriptional factor involved in the differentiation of goblet cells and the glycosylation of mucin [36]. Furthermore, goblet cell count and goblet cell-associated genes (e.g., MUC5AC, GCNT3, and TFF1) are reportedly reduced in the conjunctiva of SPDEF-/- mice [15]. MUC5AC on the ocular surface is thought to be of goblet cell origin [37]. Therefore, SPDEF mRNA expression levels on the ocular surface may reflect conjunctival goblet cell count.

Baseline SPDEF, MUC5AC, and MUC16 mRNA expression levels in SS-DE patients were not significantly different from those in age- and sex-matched controls. Interestingly, previous studies have reported that patients with Sjögren's syndrome have decreased MUC5AC in tears and in MUC5AC mRNA expression compared with control subjects [32,38]. These opposing results may be due to several reasons. First, the reported decrease in MUC5AC mRNA levels was in the context of impression cytology samples obtained from the bulbal conjunctivae of SS-DE patients [31], while our impression cytology samples were obtained from the upper palpebral conjunctivae. In clinical practice, rose bengal and fluorescence staining in patients with dry eye disease is generally more intense in the bulbar conjunctivae than in the palpebral conjunctivae. Therefore, our samples obtained from palpebral conjunctivae may not completely capture the expected alterations in mucin-related gene expression in SS-DE patients. Second, the basic therapeutic drugs typically used for primary disease in SS-DE patients may be the reason for their normal baseline expression levels of MUC5AC mRNA. The use of steroids and other immunosuppressants by our SS-DE patients may have led to improvement in their MUC5AC expression profiles, since cyclosporine eye drops are also reportedly effective for the treatment of dry eye disease [39,40].

In the clinical examinations, we found that both the fluorescein staining scores and TBUT improved in the SS-DE group between 4 and 8 weeks after the initiation of treatment. These results indicate that rebamipide instillation improves clinical outcomes in patients with dry eye, as in previous reports [41].

We assessed the effects of rebamipide ophthalmic suspension on mucin-related gene expression on the ocular surface of patients with SS-DE. During the observational period from weeks 2–8 after the start of rebamipide therapy, SPDEF and MUC5AC mRNA expression levels increased while MUC16 levels decreased. Previous studies have demonstrated that rebamipide increases the number of goblet cells in normal rabbit conjunctiva [23] as well as in the lid wiper of human conjunctiva [26]. Therefore, the SPDEF expression level increase that we observed in the ocular surface test may also reflect an increase in conjunctival goblet cells. Furthermore, the significant increase in MUC5AC mRNA expression levels at 8 weeks after baseline may also be due to an increase in goblet cells in the conjunctiva.

The effect of rebamipide ophthalmic suspension on ocular surface MUC16 expression is controversial. In previous studies, rebamipide increased MUC16 gene expression in cultured corneal epithelial cells and in a murine model of primary Sjögren’s syndrome [42,43]. Furthermore, we have previously reported two dry eye cases for which MUC5AC and MUC16 mRNA expression on the ocular surface was increased by the concomitant use of rebamipide and steroid ophthalmic suspensions, although the increase in MUC16 mRNA levels was lower than that of MUC5AC mRNA levels [44]. In contrast, Takeji et al. reported that rebamipide increased MUC1 and MUC4 but not MUC16 gene expression in cultured human corneal epithelial cells [45]. Gipson et al. have reported that MUC5AC and MUC16 are expressed in goblet cells and that these cells might be a second source of MUC16 in the conjunctiva tissue [46]. MUC16 has been associated with SPDEF expression in an SPDEF null mouse [15, 47] and correlated with MUC5AC in goblet cells within human conjunctiva [46]. In the current study, MUC16 mRNA expression levels at 4 and 8 weeks after the initiation of rebamipide treatment were significantly decreased compared with those at baseline. However, at 8 weeks of follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in MUC16 mRNA expression levels between SS-DE patients and controls. In future studies of ocular surface testing, simultaneous measurement of the expression levels of MUC5AC, MUC16, and SPDEF mRNA, as well as inflammation-related factors, such as cytokines, is needed to gain a better understanding of MUC16 expression on the ocular surface.

Clinical examinations and ocular surface tests conducted at week 12 after treatment found that all parameters were trending back toward baseline levels. The reasons for this result is unknown. It is possible that some patients in the SS-DE group did not adhere to the instillation therapy regimen, either because of improvement in their symptoms or because they forgot to apply the treatment. The possibility that uneven continuation may be due to difficulties administering the drops at work. Thus, once an adequate treatment dosage is determined, ongoing monitoring of mucin expression levels in the ocular surface is needed to assess the long-term effectiveness of the treatment.

Our study had two main limitations. First, this study lacked a control group treated with a placebo containing only the vehicle used to prepare the ophthalmic suspension. The potential influence of different eye drop vehicles on ocular surface mucin expression will be investigated in a future study. The effect of the rebamipide ophthalmic suspension on ocular surface mucin and the barrier function of conjunctival and corneal epithelium should also be determined in healthy individuals and in patients with non-dry eye conjunctivitis. Second, a long-term follow-up period, controlling for strict adherence, was not included. To more precisely determine mucous conditions and the effects of rebamipide treatment, future mucin-related gene expression studies should be conducted with a substantially greater number of subjects and stricter monitoring of adherence.

Conclusions

The mucin-related gene expression assay presented in this study may be a useful tool to evaluate tear film formation on the ocular surface of patients with SS-DE. The ocular surface test has the potential to become a leading test for dry eye, and may eventually allow mucin-promoting eye drops to become a standard medical treatment.

The raw data of control individuals.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

The raw data of the patients with Sjögren syndrome-associated dry eye.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

14 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-24941

A method for the assessment of mucin-related gene alterations following treatment with rebamipide ophthalmic suspension in Sjögren’s syndrome-associated dry eyes

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yamagami,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both expert reviewers requested more explanation of your methods, and both asked for a better explanation of how controls were sex matched with Sjögren Syndrome subjects.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 29 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alfred S Lewin, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS ONE requires experimental methods to be described in enough detail to allow suitably skilled investigators to fully replicate and evaluate your study. See https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods for more information.

To comply with PLOS ONE submission guidelines, in your Methods section, please provide a more detailed description of your methodology for the fluorescein-staining of eyes used in 'Clinical examination of patients with dry eye'.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

"This study was supported by a grant from Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. to Nihon University Itabashi Hospital. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, and the decision to publish this manuscript."

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"I have read the jpornal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: J.S. received personal fees from Santen Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Alcon Pharmaeuticals, outside the submitted work. Y.S., N.I., and A.T. declare that they have no conflict of interest."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: An interesting and useful study into the role of mucins in SS DED and the usefulness of impression cytology in determining changes in these genes.

Some comments/suggestions:

1. Some unusual data obatiend post-therapy at 12 weeks. I agree that the authors should investigate this in future studies by providing a diary or checklist to improve patient compliance. Is it possible that the efficacy of the drugs drops off in extended treatment periods?

2. Please check font size is consistent throughout text, as it varies somewhat.

3. Do the authors have any photographs of cells on schirmer stripos (possible stained) to show how cells look in the 2 groups? Morphological assessments may be useful alongside mRNA data in explaining results observed.

4. No sex-matching was doen between controls and SS pateints. Can the authors briefly explain why they could not use all females to overcome this?

5. What was inclusion/exclusion criteria for controls? Only detail given for SS patients.

6. What were the cut-off points used for TBUT for normals?

7. Can authors explain why they stored mRNA at 4oc rather than at -20/-80 prior to extraction? RNA is notoriously unstable, even at -20.

8. How did authors decide on the most appropriate control gene, GAPDH? Even control genes may be altered post-therapy (i.e. actin etc). Did they consider alternatives?

9. If previous mucin studies have sampled from the bulbal conjunctivae of SS-DE patients, why did the authors choose to sample from the upper palpebral conjunctivae?

10. Related to 9, usually SS patients are considered moderate-to-severe dry eye, due to the extended diagnosis times. Is this an early-diagnosis group to be considered mild-to-moderate? Or are more clinical assessments needed to confirm this diagnosis?

Reviewer #2: This work evaluated the mucin-related gene expression before and after rebamipide treatment in SSDE patients with the assistant of impression cytology. Following is my comments:

1. The tile focuses on the “A method”, but actually the primary and secondary objective of this study focused on the mucin-related gene expression. I think the title should be considered to modify.

2. The technique of impression cytology should be described more detailed including the position on the upper tarsal conjunctiva, the duration touched on it and how to press the paper. And usually the impression cytology is performed on the bulbar conjunctiva, why the authors choose the tarsal conjunctival?

3. Did the SSDE patients use only rebamipide during this study? The authors should state it clearly. This may associate with the unusual change of the data in week 12.

4. The data of this study showed significantly difference of mucin mRNA expression between the male and female controls. So, I think when compares the baseline mucin level, the authors can only use the female data in the control group to compare with SS group, because there is no male in SS group. Current results showed there was no difference of the mucin expression between controls and the baseline of SS group which was not consistent with most studies. When the authors removed the influence of gender, the results may change.

5. It will be better if the authors could provide representative fluorescein staining photos before and after treatment.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Suzanne Hagan

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

30 Oct 2020

Authors’ responses to the reviewers’ comments

We express our sincere appreciation to the reviewers for their insightful comments, which have helped us to significantly improve our manuscript. We have addressed all comments below in a point-by-point manner (reviewers’ comments are shown in bold-face and italics).

Reviewer #1

1. Some unusual data obatiend post-therapy at 12 weeks. I agree that the authors should investigate this in future studies by providing a diary or checklist to improve patient compliance. Is it possible that the efficacy of the drugs drops off in extended treatment periods?

Responses: We agree with your supposition and believe that the reduction in therapeutic efficacy associated with long-term use of rebamipide ophthalmic suspension should be evaluated. For this paper, we have added a picture—Figure 6—of a representative patient in whom the treatment was efficacious. However, individual differences in the efficacy of rebamipide ophthalmic suspension is a question for future research. We have added the aforementioned information on lines 353–354 in the manuscript.

2. Please check font size is consistent throughout text, as it varies somewhat.

Responses: We appreciate your attention to detail. We have determined the font size according to the submission rules of PLOS ONE and standardized it throughout the manuscript.

3. Do the authors have any photographs of cells on schirmer stripos (possible stained) to show how cells look in the 2 groups? Morphological assessments may be useful alongside mRNA data in explaining results observed.

Responses: In impression cytology using filter paper (e.g., Shirmer’s test paper), it is difficult to examine the cells adhering to the filter paper by histological examination because the filter is stained by the staining fluid and does not become transparent. However, we believe that examining the type of cells collected by impression cytology is important to make clinical sense of our test results.

4. No sex-matching was doen between controls and SS pateints. Can the authors briefly explain why they could not use all females to overcome this?

Responses: We agree with your point; accordingly, we have revised the results to compare the SS-DE group with age- and sex-matched controls. We also revised Table 4 and Figure 5. Furthermore, we have revised the descriptions on Page 19, line 249–258.

5. What was inclusion/exclusion criteria for controls? Only detail given for SS patients.

Responses: The inclusion/exclusion criteria for the control group are described on Page 7, lines 90 to 92 as follows: “The control group consisted of 33 healthy adult volunteers (7 men and 26 women) without ocular disorders and who did not wear contact lenses.”

6. What were the cut-off points used for TBUT for normals?

Responses: The statement that the normal range for TBUT is longer than 5 seconds has been added on page 8, lines 117–118.

7. Can authors explain why they stored mRNA at 4oc rather than at -20/-80 prior to extraction? RNA is notoriously unstable, even at -20.

Responses: We placed the filter papers in RNAlater solution immediately after collecting the specimens. The mRNA extraction was performed on the day of sample collection. In preliminary experiments, we observed that mRNA extraction was better without repeated freeze-thaw cycles; therefore, it was stored at 4°C until extraction.

8. How did authors decide on the most appropriate control gene, GAPDH? Even control genes may be altered post-therapy (i.e. actin etc). Did they consider alternatives?

Responses: We agree that this is an important point in performing quantitative PCR by the ΔΔCT method. GAPDH is a commonly used internal control. We compared the mRNA expression of actin with that of GAPDH, but there was no difference between the two. In the future, however, it would be desirable to create a calibration curve with a pre-determined standard mRNA.

9. If previous mucin studies have sampled from the bulbal conjunctivae of SS-DE patients, why did the authors choose to sample from the upper palpebral conjunctivae?

Responses: We performed impression cytology with filter paper as it has a lower specimen collection volume than with nitrocellulose membranes. Therefore, the upper palpebral conjunctiva was selected as the area where sufficient pressure could be applied to the filter paper. Future investigations are needed to examine optimal collection sites.

10. Related to 9, usually SS patients are considered moderate-to-severe dry eye, due to the extended diagnosis times. Is this an early-diagnosis group to be considered mild-to-moderate? Or are more clinical assessments needed to confirm this diagnosis?

Responses: This is an early-diagnosis group. As described in the Discussion section, systemic anti-inflammatory treatment for primary disease may have altered the severity of SS-DE (lines 317–319).

Reviewer #2

1. The tile focuses on the “A method”, but actually the primary and secondary objective of this study focused on the mucin-related gene expression. I think the title should be considered to modify.

Responses: We have changed the title as following: “Assessment of mucin-related gene changes following treatment with rebamipide ophthalmic suspension in Sjögren’s syndrome-associated dry eye.”

2. The technique of impression cytology should be described more detailed including the position on the upper tarsal conjunctiva, the duration touched on it and how to press the paper. And usually the impression cytology is performed on the bulbar conjunctiva, why the authors choose the tarsal conjunctival?

Responses: We have expanded the description about impression cytology as following: “the 5 mm tip of Schirmer’s test paper (Tear Production Measuring Strips, AYUMI Pharmaceutical Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) was placed at the center of the upper palpebral conjunctiva (Fig 1b) for 5 seconds using Beaupre cilia forceps” (pages 10, lines 138–139).

Impression cytology using filter paper is considered to have a lower specimen collection volume than that with nitrocellulose membranes. Therefore, we selected the upper palpebral conjunctiva as the area where sufficient pressure could be applied to the filter paper. Furthermore, we felt that the upper palpebral conjunctiva was suitable for the investigation of mucin-related genes because this region has a high density of goblet cells. However, in the present study, these features may have caused the difference between the control and SS-DE groups to be less pronounced.

3. Did the SS-DE patients use only rebamipide during this study? The authors should state it clearly. This may associate with the unusual change of the data in week 12.

Responses: We agree with your suggestion and, accordingly, have added following description:

“The rebamipide eye drops were supplemented with sodium hyaluronate in three patients, and with artificial tears and sodium hyaluronate in one; no additional medications were added for nine patients. The compositions of the eye drop were not changed during the observation period.” (page 15, lines 205–208).

4. The data of this study showed significantly difference of mucin mRNA expression between the male and female controls. So, I think when compares the baseline mucin level, the authors can only use the female data in the control group to compare with SS group, because there is no male in SS group. Current results showed there was no difference of the mucin expression between controls and the baseline of SS group which was not consistent with most studies. When the authors removed the influence of gender, the results may change.

Responses: We have revised the results to comparing the SS-DE group with age- and sex-matched controls. We have also revised Table 4 and Figure 5. Furthermore, we have revised the descriptions on Page 19, line 249–258.

5. It will be better if the authors could provide representative fluorescein staining photos before and after treatment.

Responses: We have added Figure 6, which shows the eyes of a representative case.

Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Nov 2020

Assessment of mucin-related gene alterations following treatment with rebamipide ophthalmic suspension in Sjögren’s syndrome-associated dry eyes

PONE-D-20-24941R1

Dear Dr. Yamagami,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alfred S Lewin, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

10 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-24941R1

Assessment of mucin-related gene alterations following treatment with rebamipide ophthalmic suspension in Sjögren’s syndrome-associated dry eyes

Dear Dr. Yamagami:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alfred S Lewin

Section Editor

PLOS ONE