| Literature DB >> 33815367 |
Qianli Yang1,2, Guohong Zhang3, Mingwan Su1, Gigi Leung1, Harvey Lui1, Pingyu Zhou4, Yan Wu5, Joshua Zhou6, Jinhua Xu2, Xuejun Zhang2,7, Youwen Zhou1.
Abstract
Vitiligo is an acquired depigmentation skin disease caused by immune-mediated death of melanocytes. The most common treatment for vitiligo is narrow band ultraviolet B phototherapy, which often is combined with topical therapies such as tacrolimus. However, patients' responses to these treatments show large variations. To date, the mechanism for this heterogeneity is unknown, and there are no molecular indicators that can predict an individual patient's response to therapy. The goal of this study is to identify clinical parameters and gene expression biomarkers associated with vitiligo response to therapy. Six patients with segmental vitiligo and 30 patients with non-segmental vitiligo underwent transcriptome sequencing of lesional and nonlesional skin at baseline before receiving combined UBUVB and tacrolimus therapy for 6 month, and were separated into good response and bad response groups based on target lesion achieving > 10% repigmentation or not. Our study revealed that treatment-responsive vitiligo lesions had significantly shorter disease duration compared with non-responsive vitiligo lesions (2.5 years vs 11.5 years, p=0.046, t-Test), while showing no significant differences in the age, gender, ethnicity, vitiligo subtype, or disease severity. Transcriptomic analyses identified a panel of 68 genes separating the good response from bad response lesions including upregulation of immune active genes, such as CXCL10, FCRL3, and TCR, Further, compared with vitiligo lesions with long disease duration, the lesions with short duration also have much higher level of expression of immune-active genes, including some (such as FCRL3 and TCR genes) that are associated with favorable therapeutic response. In conclusion, our study has identified clinical parameters such as short disease duration and a panel of immune active and other gene expression biomarkers that are associated with favorable response to immune suppressive NBUVB + tacrolimus therapy. These markers may be useful clinically for individualized therapeutic management of vitiligo patients in the future.Entities:
Keywords: RNA sequencing; biomarkers; phototherapy; response to therapy; tacrolimus; therapeutic markers; vitiligo
Year: 2021 PMID: 33815367 PMCID: PMC8015777 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.613031
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Clinical Information of vitiligo patients.
| ID # | Sub-type | Sex | Ethnic Origin | Age at Onset (yr) | Age at Biopsy (yr) | Vitiligo Duration (yr) | Vitiligo Severity (BSA %) | Location of Biopsied Lesion | Responsive to therapy? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vit 01 | NSV | F | SA | 30 | 31.5 | 1.5 | 5 | Arm | ~ |
| Vit 02 | NSV | F | SA | 30 | 31.5 | 1.5 | 5 | Arm | ~ |
| Vit 05 | NSV | F | SA | 26 | 30 | 4 | 2 | Arm | no |
| Vit 12 | NSV | M | Cau | 70 | 72 | 2 | 2 | Hand | no |
| Vit 13 | NSV | M | SA | 54 | 54.5 | 0.5 | 5 | Abdo | yes |
| Vit 14 | NSV | M | Chi | 10 | 17 | 7 | 11 | Leg | no |
| Vit 20 | NSV | F | SA | 35 | 39 | 4 | 10 | Abdo | no |
| Vit 21 | NSV | M | Chi | 28 | 38 | 10 | 30 | Arm | no |
| Vit 22 | NSV | M | Chi | 19 | 69 | 50 | 20 | Back | no |
| Vit 27 | NSV | M | Cau | 35 | 55 | 20 | 10 | Torso | ~ |
| Vit 28 | NSV | M | Cau | 43 | 43.75 | 0.75 | 5 | Torso | ~ |
| Vit 29 | NSV | F | Cau | 14 | 14.2 | 0.2 | 10 | Arm | yes |
| Vit 31 | SV | F | SA | 57 | 58 | 1 | 3 | Neck | ~ |
| Vit 33 | NSV | F | Cau | 23 | 33 | 10 | 10 | Knee | no |
| Vit 34 | NSV | M | SA | 8 | 8.5 | 0.5 | 22 | Abdo | yes |
| Vit 35 | NSV | M | SA | 30 | 70 | 40 | 10 | Back | no |
| Vit 36 | SV | M | Chi | 51 | 51.6 | 0.6 | 2 | Neck | yes |
| Vit 37 | NSV | F | SA | 55 | 56 | 1 | 15 | Torso | no |
| Vit 39 | NSV | M | Cau | 64 | 65 | 1 | 7 | Neck | yes |
| Vit 40 | NSV | F | Chi | 71 | 71.4 | 0.4 | 2 | Abdo | yes |
| Vit 42 | NSV | M | Chi | 36 | 59 | 23 | 30 | Hand | yes |
| Vit 43 | SV | F | Cau | 36 | 36.4 | 0.4 | 2.5 | Face | yes |
| Vit 44 | SV | F | SA | 47 | 48 | 1 | 3 | Neck | no |
| Vit 45 | SV | M | Chi | 26 | 26.5 | 0.5 | 5 | Buttock | yes |
| Vit 47 | NSV | F | Cau | 17 | 32 | 15 | 5 | Axilla | ~ |
| Vit 48 | NSV | M | Cau | 12 | 27 | 15 | 10 | Back | ~ |
| Vit 49 | NSV | F | Cau | 63 | 75 | 12 | 3 | Arm | no |
| Vit 50 | NSV | F | Cau | 58 | 59 | 1 | 6 | Back | ~ |
| Vit 51 | NSV | F | Chi | 36 | 46 | 10 | 5 | Back | no |
| Vit 54 | NSV | M | Cau | 43 | 53 | 10 | 5 | Back | no |
| Vit 55 | NSV | F | Kor | 28 | 28.5 | 0.5 | 20 | Flank | yes |
| Vit 56 | NSV | F | SA | 40 | 40.2 | 0.2 | 6 | Shoulder | yes |
| Vit 57 | NSV | M | Cau | 50 | 60 | 10 | 8 | Arm | ~ |
| Vit 58 | SV | F | Cau | 63 | 63.3 | 0.3 | 3 | Neck | ~ |
| Vit 59 | NSV | M | Chi | 15 | 25 | 10 | 3 | Torso | no |
| Vit 61 | SV | F | Chi | 15 | 15.75 | 0.75 | 1 | Neck | ~ |
SV, segmental vitiligo; NSV, nonsegmental vitiligo; Cau, Caucasians; Chi, Chinese, Kor, Korean; SA, South Asian; BSA, Body surface area; ~ not available.
Correlational Analysis of Response to NBUVB-Tacrolimus Therapy.
| Parameters | Favorable Response to Therapy | Non-Favorable Response to Therapy | Response Not assessed | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (% males) | 54.5% | 53.30% | 36.4% | ns |
| Ethnicity (Caucasians vs Asians) | 3 vs 8 | 4 vs 10 | 7 vs 4 | ns |
| Age at biopsy | 41.4 | 46.4 | 43.3 | ns |
| Age at onset | 38.9 | 35.0 | 37.3 | ns |
| Duration of lesion | 2.5 | 11.4 | 6.1 | 0.047 |
| Vitiligo severity (%BSA) | 10.1 | 8.6 | 5.5 | ns |
| Segmental vs Non-segmental ratio | 3 vs 8 | 1 vs 13 | 3 vs 8 | ns |
| Acral vs non-acral | 1 vs 10 | 1 vs 13 | 0 vs 11 | ns |
BSA, body surface area; ns, not significant.
Figure 1Genes with differential expression between vitiligo lesional skin and normal health skin. (A) The expression of the 723 genes with significant differential expression (> 2 fold change, p<0.05) compared with normal healthy skin (NHS, shown in green on the top panel, N=9), lesional skin of segmental vitiligo (shown in dark purple, N=6), and non-segmental vitiligo (bright purple, N=30) is presented as a heat map with non-supervised clustering analysis. Red and green color designate up or down regulation, respectively, of the gene in that particular sample compared to the average of healthy normal skin. The complete list of these genes are included in . (B, C) Biological pathways represented by genes up and down regulated in LS over healthy normal skin, respectively. The p values were obtained by Metascape analysis.
Figure 2Expression of melanocyte marker genes in lesions with good and bad response to therapy, and between long and short duration lesions. The LS/NLS expression ratios of major melanocyte marker genes, DCT, TYR, TYRP1, and PMEL of good and bad response groups are presented as dot plots. There was no significant relationship between the expression levels of these genes and therapeutic response (p > 0.05).
Figure 3Genes with differential expression between vitiligo lesions with favorable response and lesions with non-favorable response to therapy. (A) LS/NLS ratios of 69 genes showing >2 fold difference between good response and bac response lesions (p < 0.05); (B, C) Pathways represented by markers of good and bad response, respectively.
Figure 4Genes with differential expression between lesions with short duration and lesions with long duration. (A) The LS/NLS ratios of 85 genes with >2 fold up or down regulated between lesions of <12 month duration and lesions >12 month duration. (B, C) Top biological genes enriched or decreased in short and long duration lesions, respectively.