| Literature DB >> 34857759 |
Susree Roy1, Suchandrima Ghosh1, Mallica Banerjee1, Sayantan Laha2, Dipanjan Bhattacharjee3, Rajib Sarkar4, Sujay Ray5, Arko Banerjee4, Ranajoy Ghosh6, Aniket Halder6, Alakendu Ghosh3, Raghunath Chatterjee2, Simanti Datta1, Gopal Krishna Dhali4, Soma Banerjee7.
Abstract
Differentiation of Crohn's disease (CD) from intestinal tuberculosis (ITB) is a big challenge to gastroenterologists because of their indistinguishable features and insensitive diagnostic tools. A non-invasive biomarker is urgently required to distinguish ITB/CD patients particularly in India, a TB endemic region, where CD frequency is increasing rapidly due to urbanization. Among the three differentially expressed miRNAs obtained from small RNA transcriptomic profiling of ileocaecal/terminal ileal tissue of ITB/CD patients (n = 3), only two down-regulated miRNAs, miR-31-5p, and miR-215-5p showed comparable data in qRT-PCR. Out of which, only miR-215-5p was detectable in the patient's plasma, but there was no significant difference in expression between ITB/CD. On the other hand, miR-375-3p, the pulmonary TB specific marker was found in higher amount in the plasma of ITB patients than CD while reverse expression was observed in the ileocaecal/terminal ileal tissues of the same patients. Next, using Bioplex pro-human cytokine 48-plex screening panel, only three chemokines, Eotaxin-1/CCL11, SDF-1α/CXCL12, and G-CSF have noted significantly different levels in the serum of ITB/CD patients. ROC analysis has revealed that compared to a single molecule, a combination of miR-375-3p + Eotaxin-1/CCL11 + SDF-1α /CXCL12 + G-CSF showed a better AUC of 0.83, 95% CI (0.69-0.96) with 100% specificity and positive predictive value while sensitivity, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 56%, 69%, and 78% respectively in distinguishing ITB from CD. This study suggests that a combination of plasma markers shows better potential in differentiating ITB from CD than a single marker and this panel of markers may be used for clinical management of ITB/CD patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34857759 PMCID: PMC8639680 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-02383-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Demographic and clinical parameters of the included subjects.
| Variable | ITB | CD | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (yr) (mean ± sd) | 32.53 ± 12.02 | 32.7 ± 12.5 | 0.97 |
| Sex (F/M) | 12/15 | 10/15 | |
| Duration of disease (month) | 10 (2–78) | 8 (2–180) | 0.5 |
| Fever (Y/N) | 20/7 | 19/6 | 0.96 |
| Pain abdomen (Y/N) | 23/4 | 21/4 | 0.99 |
| Weight loss (Y/N) | 24/3 | 20/5 | 0.97 |
| Gola formation (Y/N) | 21/6 | 15/10 | 0.17 |
| Location (%) | |||
| Terminal ileal | 6 (22) | 10 (40) | 0.57 |
| Ileocecal | 21 (78) | 9 (36) | 0.02 |
| Colonic | 0 (00) | 6 (24) | 0.77 |
| Hemoglobin (gm/dl) (mean ± sd) | 10.68 ± 1.57 | 9.61 ± 3.4 | 0.81 |
| ESR (mm) (mean ± sd) | 47 ± 23.92 | 52.1 ± 21.8 | 0.7 |
| CRP (mg/dl) [median (range)] | 1.1 (0.7–43.8) | 1.74 (0.3–4.7) | 0.60 |
| Granulomatous iletis (%) | 9 (33) | 6 (24) | 0.97 |
| Chronic active iletis (%) | 0 (00) | 7 (28) | 0.03 |
| Non-specific inflammation (%) | 17 (63) | 12 (48) | 0.74 |
| TB PCR positive (%) | 27(100) | 0 (00) | 6.30E−11 |
Figure 1Schematic diagram of experimental flow.
Figure 2(a) Hematoxylin & Eosin staining of ileocaecal/terminal ileal tissue of CD and ITB patients; (b–d) Volcano plot analysis with NGS data between Control vs. CD, Control vs. ITB and CD vs. ITB. miRNAs showed significant changes in expression are presented in the adjascent tables. Expression of the miRNAs were validated by qRT-PCR (e) miR-31-5p and (f) miR-215-5p respectively. p-values ≤ 0.01 is presented as **.
Figure 3qRT-PCR validation of (a) miR-215-5p and (b) miR-375-3p in plasma of UC, CD, and ITB patients, and (c) miR-375-3p in ileocaecal/ileal tissues of CD and ITB patients and (d) Receiver operating curve analysis of miR-375-3p as marker differentiating CD and ITB and adjacent table includes threshold [Log10(2-Δctx105)], sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values. * and ** denotes p-value ≤ 0.05 and 0.01 and ns is not significant.
Figure 4(a–c) ELISA data of SDF-1α/ CXCL12, Eotaxin-1/CCL11, and G-CSF in serum of UC, CD, and ITB patient. (d) ROC analysis of each chemokine and their combinations. Table shows threshold (pg/ml), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values. p-values ≤ 0.05 is denoted as *.
Figure 5ROC analysis with different combination of all the four markers miR-375-3p + SDF-1α/CXCL12 + G-CSF; miR-375-3p + SDF-1α/CXCL12 + Eotaxin-1/CCL11; and miR-375-3p + Eotaxin-1/CCL11 + SDF-1α/CXCL12 + G-CSF. Threshold (pg/ml for chemokines and [Log10(2-Δctx105)] for miRNA, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values are included in the adjacent table for each comparison.