OBJECTIVE: Skin inflammation heralds systemic disease in juvenile myositis, yet we lack an understanding of pathogenic mechanisms driving skin inflammation in this disease. We undertook this study to define cutaneous gene expression signatures in juvenile myositis and identify key genes and pathways that differentiate skin disease in juvenile myositis from childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: We used formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded skin biopsy samples from 15 patients with juvenile myositis (9 lesional, 6 nonlesional), 5 patients with childhood-onset SLE, and 8 controls to perform transcriptomic analysis and identify significantly differentially expressed genes (DEGs; q ≤ 5%) between patient groups. We used Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) to highlight enriched biologic pathways and validated DEGs by immunohistochemistry and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: Comparison of lesional juvenile myositis to control samples revealed 221 DEGs, with the majority of up-regulated genes representing interferon (IFN)-stimulated genes. CXCL10, CXCL9, and IFI44L represented the top 3 DEGs (fold change 23.2, 13.3, and 13.0, respectively; q < 0.0001). IPA revealed IFN signaling as the top canonical pathway. When compared to childhood-onset SLE, lesional juvenile myositis skin shared a similar gene expression pattern, with only 28 unique DEGs, including FBLN2, CHKA, and SLURP1. Notably, patients with juvenile myositis who were positive for nuclear matrix protein 2 (NXP-2) autoantibodies exhibited the strongest IFN signature and also demonstrated the most extensive Mx-1 immunostaining, both in keratinocytes and perivascular regions. CONCLUSION: Lesional juvenile myositis skin demonstrates a striking IFN signature similar to that previously reported in juvenile myositis muscle and peripheral blood. Further investigation into the association of a higher IFN score with NXP-2 autoantibodies may provide insight into disease endotypes and pathogenesis.
OBJECTIVE: Skin inflammation heralds systemic disease in juvenile myositis, yet we lack an understanding of pathogenic mechanisms driving skin inflammation in this disease. We undertook this study to define cutaneous gene expression signatures in juvenile myositis and identify key genes and pathways that differentiate skin disease in juvenile myositis from childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: We used formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded skin biopsy samples from 15 patients with juvenile myositis (9 lesional, 6 nonlesional), 5 patients with childhood-onset SLE, and 8 controls to perform transcriptomic analysis and identify significantly differentially expressed genes (DEGs; q ≤ 5%) between patient groups. We used Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) to highlight enriched biologic pathways and validated DEGs by immunohistochemistry and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: Comparison of lesional juvenile myositis to control samples revealed 221 DEGs, with the majority of up-regulated genes representing interferon (IFN)-stimulated genes. CXCL10, CXCL9, and IFI44L represented the top 3 DEGs (fold change 23.2, 13.3, and 13.0, respectively; q < 0.0001). IPA revealed IFN signaling as the top canonical pathway. When compared to childhood-onset SLE, lesional juvenile myositis skin shared a similar gene expression pattern, with only 28 unique DEGs, including FBLN2, CHKA, and SLURP1. Notably, patients with juvenile myositis who were positive for nuclear matrix protein 2 (NXP-2) autoantibodies exhibited the strongest IFN signature and also demonstrated the most extensive Mx-1 immunostaining, both in keratinocytes and perivascular regions. CONCLUSION: Lesional juvenile myositis skin demonstrates a striking IFN signature similar to that previously reported in juvenile myositis muscle and peripheral blood. Further investigation into the association of a higher IFN score with NXP-2 autoantibodies may provide insight into disease endotypes and pathogenesis.
Authors: Alexander I Saeed; Nirmal K Bhagabati; John C Braisted; Wei Liang; Vasily Sharov; Eleanor A Howe; Jianwei Li; Mathangi Thiagarajan; Joseph A White; John Quackenbush Journal: Methods Enzymol Date: 2006 Impact factor: 1.600
Authors: Jeffrey B Hodgin; Alain C Borczuk; Samih H Nasr; Glen S Markowitz; Viji Nair; Sebastian Martini; Felix Eichinger; Courtenay Vining; Celine C Berthier; Matthias Kretzler; Vivette D D'Agati Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Hatice Bilgic; Steven R Ytterberg; Shreyasee Amin; Kelly T McNallan; Joseph C Wilson; Thearith Koeuth; Sonja Ellingson; Brant Newman; Jason W Bauer; Erik J Peterson; Emily C Baechler; Ann M Reed Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2009-11
Authors: Fabricio Espinosa-Ortega; Marie Holmqvist; Helene Alexanderson; Helena Storfors; Tsuneyo Mimori; Ingrid E Lundberg; Johan Rönnelid Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: David Wong; Bory Kea; Rob Pesich; Brandon W Higgs; Wei Zhu; Patrick Brown; Yihong Yao; David Fiorentino Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Judith Wienke; Felicitas Bellutti Enders; Johan Lim; Jorre S Mertens; Luuk L van den Hoogen; Camiel A Wijngaarde; Joo Guan Yeo; Alain Meyer; Henny G Otten; Ruth D E Fritsch-Stork; Sylvia S M Kamphuis; Esther P A H Hoppenreijs; Wineke Armbrust; J Merlijn van den Berg; Petra C E Hissink Muller; Janneke Tekstra; Jessica E Hoogendijk; Claire T Deakin; Wilco de Jager; Joël A G van Roon; W Ludo van der Pol; Kiran Nistala; Clarissa Pilkington; Marianne de Visser; Thaschawee Arkachaisri; Timothy R D J Radstake; Anneke J van der Kooi; Stefan Nierkens; Lucy R Wedderburn; Annet van Royen-Kerkhof; Femke van Wijk Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2019-03-12 Impact factor: 10.995