Two Gene Set Variation Index as Biomarker of Bacterial and Fungal Sepsis

Zheng, Xiaowen; Luo, Yifeng; Li, Qian; Feng, Jihua; Zhao, Chunling; Lu, Junyu; Luo, Jiefeng; Zhang, Jianfeng

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8182358

BioMed Research International

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 | Article ID 8182358 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8182358

Two Gene Set Variation Index as Biomarker of Bacterial and Fungal Sepsis

Xiaowen Zheng,¹Yifeng Luo,¹Qian Li,¹Jihua Feng,¹Chunling Zhao,¹Junyu Lu,¹Jiefeng Luo,¹and Jianfeng Zhang¹

Academic Editor: Ernesto S. Nakayasu

Received20 Mar 2020

Accepted09 May 2020

Published04 Jun 2020

Abstract

Background. The incidence of sepsis has been increasing in recent years. The molecular mechanism of different pathogenic sepsis remains elusive, and biomarkers of sepsis against different pathogens are still lacking. Methods. The microarray data of bacterial sepsis, fungal sepsis, and mock-treated samples were applied to perform differentially expressed gene (DEG) analysis to identify a bacterial sepsis-specific gene set and a fungal sepsis-specific gene set. Functional enrichment analysis was used to explore the body’s response to bacterial sepsis and fungal sepsis. Gene set variation analysis (GSVA) was used to score individual samples against the two pathogen-specific gene sets, and each sample gets a GSVA index. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic value of sepsis. An independent data set was used to validate the bacterial sepsis-specific GSVA index. Results. The genes differentially expressed only in bacterial sepsis and the genes differentially expressed only in fungal sepsis were significantly involved in different biological processes (BPs) and pathways. This indicated that the body’s responses to fungal sepsis and bacterial sepsis are varied. Twenty-two genes were identified as bacterial sepsis-specific genes and upregulated in bacterial sepsis, and 23 genes were identified as fungal sepsis-specific genes and upregulated in fungal sepsis. ROC curve analysis showed that both of the two pathogen sepsis-specific GSVA indexes may be a reliable biomarker for corresponding pathogen-induced sepsis (), while the mRNA of CALCA (also known as PCT) have a poor diagnostic value with in bacterial sepsis and in fungi sepsis. In addition, the AUC of the bacterial sepsis-specific GSVA index in the independent data set was 0.762. Conclusion. We proposed a bacterial sepsis-specific gene set and a fungal sepsis-specific gene set; the bacterial sepsis GSVA index may be a reliable biomarker for bacterial sepsis.

1. Introduction

Sepsis is a life-threatening disease characterized by systemic inflammation caused by infection [1–3]. It usually occurs after infection with virus, fungi, and bacteria [4]. At present, sepsis incidence is estimated at 270 cases per 100,000 persons/year followed by an approximately 26% mortality rate, potentially 5.3 million deaths annually in the world [5, 6]. In recent years, great progress has been made in searching for biomarkers of sepsis, including CALCA (also known as PCT) [7], C-reactive protein [8, 9], and interleukin-6 [10] which have been found to be biomarkers of sepsis. However, their clinical application is limited [11] due to these biomarkers that are nonpathogen-specific sepsis. Since the most common two types of pathogens, bacterial and fungal, require fundamentally different therapies, the classification is crucial in the management of sepsis. Sepsis is characterized as a host reaction to infection involving not only the activation of pro- and anti-inflammatory responses but also modifications in nonimmunological pathways (cardiovascular, autonomic, neurological, hormonal, metabolic, and clotting) [12]. We hypothesized that the reactions of the host to bacterial and fungal sepsis may be different, and the different reactions may be reflected in the whole blood gene expression patterns. To explore our hypothesis and provide potential pathogen-specific biomarkers to help distinguish bacterial and fungal sepsis. In the present study, the gene expression profiles of bacterial and fungal sepsis were used for analysis. Compared to mock-treated blood, the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in bacterial and fungal sepsis were, respectively, screened. Functional enrichment analysis was performed to explore the body’s reactions to sepsis induced by different pathogens. Moreover, we identified and validated a gene set as biomarkers of bacterial sepsis.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection and Processing

In the present study, the whole blood gene expression profiles of GSE65088 [13] in the website of GEO (https://http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) were downloaded, including 20 bacterial sepsis (10 Escherichia coli and 10 Staphylococcus aureus), 16 fungal sepsis (6 Aspergillus fumigatus and 10 Candida albicans), and 21 mock-treated whole blood samples. The whole blood gene expression profiles of GSE123730 [14] were downloaded to validate the gene set, including 10 bacterial sepsis and 35 nonsepsis. The normalizeBetweenArrays function in limma package [15] was used to normalize the gene expression profile. This gene expression profile of GSE65088 was based on GPL10558 while GSE123730 was based on GPL19803. If a gene corresponds to multiple probes, the average expression value of these probes is the expression value of the gene. The workflow of the present study is shown in Figure 1.

2.2. DEGs in Bacterial Sepsis and Fungal Sepsis

Compared to the mock-treated samples, the DEGs in bacterial sepsis and fungal sepsis samples were, respectively, screened using the limma package in R. The fold changes (FCs) in the expression of individual genes were calculated, and genes with and adjusted by the false discovery rate (FDR) were considered significant.

2.3. Functional Enrichment Analysis

To explore the difference of human response to bacterial sepsis and fungi sepsis. The ClueGO plugin [16] of Cytoscape [17] software was applied to create a functionally organized biological process (BP) term network of DEGs only in bacterial sepsis, fungal sepsis, and common DEGs. Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analyses of DEGs only in bacterial sepsis, fungal sepsis, and common DEGs were performed, respectively, using the clusterProfiler package [18].

2.4. Identification of Pathogen-Specific Gene Set in Sepsis

The DEGs in bacterial sepsis compared with those in fungal sepsis were also screened using the same method and the same threshold. Subsequently, the VennDiagram package [19] in R was performed to identify pathogen-specific DEGs of bacterial sepsis and fungal sepsis in DEG bacterial sepsis vs. mock-treated, DEG fungal sepsis vs. mock-treated, and DEG bacterial sepsis vs. mock treated. We generated two gene sets for bacterial sepsis and fungal sepsis, respectively. Gene set variation analysis (GSVA) [20] was used to score individual samples against the gene set, and each sample set gets a bacterial sepsis-specific GSVA index and fungal bacterial sepsis-specific GSVA index. The GSVA package in R was used in the GSVA.

2.5. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve Analysis

ROC curve analysis was performed to access the diagnostic value for sepsis of the two pathogen-specific sepsis GSVA indexes. ROC curve analysis was performed using pROC package [21] in R. In addition, although protein of CACLA has been identified and used in clinic as a biomarker of sepsis [7, 22], the diagnostic value of mRNA of CACLA was also evaluated in the present study.

2.6. Validation of Bacterial Sepsis-Specific GSVA Index in an Independent Data Set

As it was in the GSE65088, the bacterial sepsis-specific GSVA index was calculated for the samples in GSE123730. ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate the value of bacterial sepsis-specific GSVA index and the mRNA of CALCA for diagnosing bacterial sepsis.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. The Gene Expression Patterns of Whole Blood Were Varied in Bacterial Sepsis and Fungal Sepsis

Compared to mock-treated samples, a total of 95 DEGs were found in bacterial sepsis, 90 of which were upregulated and 5 of which were downregulated (Figure 2(a)). In fungal sepsis, a total of 56 DEGs were found, 50 of which were upregulated, and 6 of which were downregulated (Figure 2(b)). In bacterial sepsis versus fungal sepsis, 61 DEGs were found totally, 28 of which were upregulated and 33 of which were downregulated (Figure 2(c)). The expression heat map showed that the gene expression patterns may distinguish bacterial sepsis and fungal sepsis (Figure 2(d)) from mock samples.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

3.2. Enrichment Analysis of DEGs

Functional enrichment analysis was used to explore the difference of the host reaction to bacterial sepsis and fungal sepsis. The results of ClueGO analysis revealed that the genes only differentially expressed in bacterial sepsis were significantly involved in defense response to virus, regulation of defense response to virus, and positive regulation of response to biotic stimulus and other biological processes (Figure 3(a)), while the genes only differentially expressed in fungal sepsis were significantly enriched in the biological processes such as negative regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase II promoter in response to stress and positive regulation of interleukin-8 production and other biological processes (Figure 3(b)). The common DEGs in bacterial sepsis and fungal sepsis were significantly enriched in BP mononuclear cell migration and negative regulation of viral process (Figure 3(c)).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

The genes only differentially expressed in bacterial sepsis are significantly involved in viral protein interaction with cytokine and cytokine receptor, chemokine signaling pathway, and necroptosis pathways (Figure 3(d)). The genes only differentially expressed in fungal sepsis are significantly involved in antigen processing and presentation and lysosome and NF-kappa B signaling pathway (Figure 3(e)). The genes both differentially expressed in bacterial and fungal sepsis were significantly involved in MAPK signaling pathway and antifolate resistance (Figure 3(f)).

3.3. Bacterial Sepsis- and Fungal Sepsis-Specific Gene Sets

A gene set included 22 bacterial sepsis-specific DEGs, and a gene set included 23 fungal sepsis-specific DEGs were generated, respectively (Figure 4(a)). Compared to the mock-treated samples, all the 22 bacterial sepsis-specific genes (HAMP, IL12B, IFNG, CH25H, CXCL10, IFIT3, IFIT2, IFIT1, TNFSF10, TNIP3, CFB, IL27, IDO1, OASL, USP18, HERC5, MAP3K8, ACOD1, RIN2, NCOA7, DNAAF1, and PLAU) were upregulated in bacterial sepsis, and all the 23 fungal sepsis-specific genes (HCAR2, EFR2, OSM, LINC00936, TNFSF14, FOSB, NRIP3, PPIF, HILPDA, HSPA1B, HSPA1A, SPINK1, GDF15, GLA, TBC1D7, PHACTR1, GNPDA1, TBC1D2, VPS18, TGM3, PROK2, PLIN2, and SPP1) were also upregulated in fungal sepsis.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Subsequently, all samples got a bacterial sepsis-specific GSVA index and a fungal sepsis-specific sepsis GSVA index. ROC curve analysis showed that the two pathogen-specific sepsis GSVA indexes may be powerful biomarkers for bacterial sepsis (Figure 4(b)) and fungal sepsis (Figure 4(c)) with both , while the mRNA of CALCA may not be a good biomarker of sepsis in bacterial sepsis with an AUC =0.512 (Figure 4(d)) and fungal sepsis with an (Figure 4(e)).

3.4. Validation of the Bacterial Sepsis-Specific GSVA Index

In GSE123730, the ROC curve analysis showed that the bacterial sepsis-specific GSVA index may also be a reliable biomarker with (Figure 5(a)), while the mRNA of CALCA remained to have a poor diagnostic value for bacterial sepsis with (Figure 5(b)). This result was consistent with that in GSE65088.

(a)

(b)

Sepsis accounts for an estimated 30 million cases and 6 million deaths globally each year. [23] However, the mechanism of sepsis was not fully understood. Though there are some biomarkers that have been found, a reliable biomarker of pathogen-specific sepsis remains an unmet medical need. It is often difficult to distinguish between bacterial and fungal sepsis early in suspected sepsis, and the difficulty in distinguishing between bacterial and nonbacterial aetiologies is also a cause of the misuse of antibiotics [24] and contributes to the emergence of antibiotic resistance [25]. In present study, we found the gene expression patterns of the whole blood were varied in bacterial sepsis and fungal sepsis; this opens up the possibility of using whole blood gene expression profiles to distinguish between types of sepsis caused by different pathogens.

Functional enrichment analysis revealed that the body’s responses to sepsis induced by different pathogens were also different. The BPs of negative regulation and mononuclear cell migration, the KEGG pathways of MAPK signaling pathway, and antifolate resistance were enriched in bacterial sepsis and fungal sepsis; these body responses were common in bacterial and fungal sepsis. This may provide potential therapeutic targets for sepsis when the pathogens are not confirmed. The BPs enriched in bacterial-sepsis mitochondrial fission, protein ADP-ribosylation, and chemokine activity may be the specific reactions of the body to bacterial sepsis, while the BPs enriched in fungal sepsis of positive regulation of interleukin-8 production and negative regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase II promoter in response to stress were the specific response of the body to fungal sepsis. The pathways of viral protein interaction with cytokine and cytokine receptor, chemokine signaling pathway [26], and necroptosis [27, 28] were significantly enriched in bacterial sepsis, while the pathways of the antigen processing and presentation [29], lysosome, and NF-kappa B signaling pathway were significantly enriched in fungal sepsis, and these three pathways may be the body’s immune response to fungal sepsis [30–32]. We have preliminarily revealed the response of the human immune system to sepsis caused by different pathogens.

Furthermore, a bacterial sepsis-specific gene set and a fungal sepsis-specific gene set were generated in our present study. In the bacterial sepsis-specific gene set, unsurprisingly, some of them were reported to be associated with bacterial sepsis, such as IFNG, CXCL10 [33], HERC5 [34], IFIT2 [35], TNFSF10 [36], CFB [37], IL27 [38], IDO1 [39], MAP3K8 [40], and PLAU [41]. And OSM [42], HSPA1A [43], GDF15 [44], GLA [45], and PROK2 [46] in the fungal sepsis-specific gene set were reported to be associated with fungal sepsis. Our present study indicated that HAMP, IL12B, CH25H, IFIT1, TNIP3, ACOD1, RIN2, NCOA7, and DNAAF1 may also be associated with bacterial sepsis, while HCAR2, EFR2, LINC00936, TNFSF14, FOSB, NRIP3, PPIF, HILPDA, HSPA1B, SPINK1, TBC1D7, PHACTR1, GNPDA1, TBC1D2, VPS18, TGM3, PLIN2, and SPP1 may also be associated with fungal sepsis. These may be potential candidate hub molecules for sepsis.

Moreover, a bacterial sepsis-specific GSVA index and a fungal sepsis-specific GSVA were calculated in the present study. To our best knowledge, it was the first time to use the method of single sample gene set enrichment analysis to investigate the underlying mechanism of sepsis. We found that the two sepsis GSVA score systems may be reliable biomarkers for sepsis, especially, the bacterial sepsis GSVA index been validated in another independent data set. In addition, though PCT emerged as the leading biomarker to indicate the presence of systemic infection [22], the diagnostic value of mRNA of CALCA was poor. This indicated that the transcriptional regulation of sepsis is complex.

Although our study may provide new insights for sepsis, there are several notable limitations. The cost of sequencing is still high which may limit clinical application now, but the cost of sequencing is declining. Due to the fact that fungal sepsis is relatively rare in clinical practice, it will take a long time to collect data in a single center. We also failed to find a suitable validation set in the GEO database; thus, the fungal sepsis GSVA were not validated in the present study.

4. Conclusions

We proposed a bacterial sepsis-specific gene set and a fungal sepsis-specific gene set; the bacterial sepsis GSVA index may be a reliable biomarker for bacterial sepsis.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81960343), the Key Research and Development Project of Guangxi (Grant No. Guike AB17195002 and 2020AB39012), Guangxi Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. 2017GXNSFAA198249), the Scientific Research Funding from the Population and Family Planning Commission of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (Grant No. S2017009), and the High-Level Medical Expert Training Program of Guangxi “139” Plan Funding (Grant No. G201903027). The authors would like to thank Life-ontology Biotechnology Co., Ltd. for assisting bioinformatics analysis.

References

D. C. Angus and R. S. Wax, “Epidemiology of sepsis: an update,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 29, 7, Supplement, pp. S109–S116, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. Hotchkiss and I. E. Karl, “The pathophysiology and treatment of sepsis,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 348, no. 2, pp. 138–150, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. M. Kaukonen, M. Bailey, D. Pilcher, D. J. Cooper, and R. Bellomo, “Systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria in defining severe sepsis,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 372, no. 17, pp. 1629–1638, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. R. Ludwig and A. B. Hummon, “Mass spectrometry for the discovery of biomarkers of sepsis,” Molecular BioSystems, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 648–664, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Singer, C. S. Deutschman, C. W. Seymour et al., “The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3),” JAMA, vol. 315, no. 8, pp. 801–810, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Fleischmann, A. Scherag, N. K. Adhikari et al., “Assessment of global incidence and mortality of hospital-treated sepsis. Current estimates and limitations,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 193, no. 3, pp. 259–272, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Karzai, M. Oberhoffer, A. Meier-Hellmann, and K. Reinhart, “Procalcitonin--a new indicator of the systemic response to severe infections,” Infection, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 329–334, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Gabay and I. Kushner, “Acute-phase proteins and other systemic responses to inflammation,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 340, no. 6, pp. 448–454, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Póvoa, L. Coelho, E. Almeida et al., “C-reactive protein as a marker of infection in critically ill patients,” Clinical Microbiology and Infection, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 101–108, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Parker, D. Delpy, and E. . R. Reynolds, “Transcutaneous blood gas measurement by mass spectrometry,” Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, vol. 22, Supplement 68, pp. 131–136, 1978.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Giannakopoulos, U. Hoffmann, U. Ansari et al., “The use of biomarkers in sepsis: a systematic review,” Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 499–507, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Rello, F. Valenzuela-Sanchez, M. Ruiz-Rodriguez, and S. Moyano, “Sepsis: a review of advances in management,” Advances in Therapy, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 2393–2411, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Dix, K. Hünniger, M. Weber, R. Guthke, O. Kurzai, and J. Linde, “Biomarker-based classification of bacterial and fungal whole-blood infections in a genome-wide expression study,” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 6, p. 171, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Dolinay, Y. S. Kim, J. Howrylak et al., “Inflammasome-regulated cytokines are critical mediators of acute lung injury,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 185, no. 11, pp. 1225–1234, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. E. Ritchie, B. Phipson, D. Wu et al., “limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 43, no. 7, p. e47, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Bindea, B. Mlecnik, H. Hackl et al., “ClueGO: a Cytoscape plug-in to decipher functionally grouped gene ontology and pathway annotation networks,” Bioinformatics, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 1091–1093, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Shannon, A. Markiel, O. Ozier et al., “Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks,” Genome Research, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 2498–2504, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Yu, L.-G. Wang, Y. Han, and Q.-Y. He, “clusterProfiler: an R package for comparing biological themes among gene clusters,” OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 284–287, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Chen and P. C. Boutros, “VennDiagram: a package for the generation of highly-customizable Venn and Euler diagrams in R,” BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 12, no. 1, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Hänzelmann, R. Castelo, and J. Guinney, “GSVA: gene set variation analysis for microarray and RNA-seq data,” BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 7, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Robin, N. Turck, A. Hainard et al., “pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves,” BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 12, no. 1, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Cabral, V. Afreixo, L. Almeida, and J. A. Paiva, “The use of procalcitonin (PCT) for diagnosis of sepsis in burn patients: a meta-analysis,” PLoS One, vol. 11, no. 12, article e0168475, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. B. Gotur, “Sepsis in a panorama: what the cardiovascular physician should know,” Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 89–100, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. C. Craig, G. J. Williams, M. Jones et al., “The accuracy of clinical symptoms and signs for the diagnosis of serious bacterial infection in young febrile children: prospective cohort study of 15 781 febrile illnesses,” BMJ, vol. 340, article c1594, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. P. Wenzel and M. B. Edmond, “Managing antibiotic resistance,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 343, no. 26, pp. 1961–1963, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Wang, Y. Huang, J. S. Zhang, and X. B. Yang, “Synthesis, characterization, DNA interaction, and antitumor activities of La (III) complex with Schiff base ligand derived from kaempferol and diethylenetriamine,” Bioinorganic Chemistry and Applications, vol. 2014, Article ID 354138, 9 pages, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Mizumura, S. Maruoka, Y. Gon, A. M. K. Choi, and S. Hashimoto, “The role of necroptosis in pulmonary diseases,” Respiratory Investigation, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 407–412, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. J. Kearney and S. J. Martin, “An inflammatory perspective on necroptosis,” Molecular Cell, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 965–973, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. K. Patil, J. K. Bohannon, and E. R. Sherwood, “Immunotherapy: a promising approach to reverse sepsis-induced immunosuppression,” Pharmacological Research, vol. 111, pp. 688–702, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Zhou, “Molecular mechanisms of IFN-gamma to up-regulate MHC class I antigen processing and presentation,” International Reviews of Immunology, vol. 28, no. 3-4, pp. 239–260, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. M. Perera and R. Zoncu, “The lysosome as a regulatory hub,” Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 223–253, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Schutze, K. Wiegmann, T. Machleidt, and M. Kronke, “TNF-induced activation of NF-kappa B,” Immunobiology, vol. 193, no. 2-4, pp. 193–203, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Allantaz-Frager, F. Turrel-Davin, F. Venet et al., “Identification of biomarkers of response to IFNg during endotoxin tolerance: application to septic shock,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 7, article e68218, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Á. Jiménez-Sousa, R. Almansa, C. de la Fuente et al., “Gene expression profiling in the first twelve weeks of treatment in chronic hepatitis C patients,” Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 573–580, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Siegfried, S. Berchtold, B. Manncke et al., “IFIT2 is an effector protein of type I IFN-mediated amplification of lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced TNF-α secretion and LPS-induced endotoxin shock,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 191, no. 7, pp. 3913–3921, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Ibrahim-zada, P. Rhee, C. T. Gomez, J. Weller, and R. S. Friese, “Inhibition of sepsis-induced inflammatory response by β1-adrenergic antagonists,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 320–328, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Zou, Y. Feng, Y. Li et al., “Complement factor B is the downstream effector of TLRs and plays an important role in a mouse model of severe sepsis,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 191, no. 11, pp. 5625–5635, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Jacobs and H. R. Wong, “Emerging infection and sepsis biomarkers: will they change current therapies?” Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 929–941, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bessede, M. Gargaro, M. T. Pallotta et al., “Aryl hydrocarbon receptor control of a disease tolerance defence pathway,” Nature, vol. 511, no. 7508, pp. 184–190, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Dong, H. Li, S. Zhang, and G. Yang, “miR‑148 family members are putative biomarkers for sepsis,” Molecular Medicine Reports, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 5133–5141, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. G. Shen, J. L. Guo, and D. S. Li, “Screening of differentially expressed genes related to severe sepsis induced by multiple trauma with DNA microarray,” European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 734–739, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Guillet, M. Fourcin, S. Chevalier, A. Pouplard, and H. Gascan, “ELISA detection of circulating levels of LIF, OSM, and CNTF in septic shock,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 762, no. 1, pp. 407–409, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. W. G. A. Bronkhorst, P. Patka, and E. M. M. Van Lieshout, “Effects of sequence variations in innate immune response genes on infectious outcome in trauma patients,” Shock, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 390–396, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. H. Luan, A. Wang, B. K. Hilliard et al., “GDF15 is an inflammation-induced central mediator of tissue tolerance,” Cell, vol. 178, no. 5, pp. 1231–1244.e11, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Lee, J. Seo, S. Kwak et al., “A double-chambered protein nanocage loaded with thrombin receptor agonist peptide (TRAP) and γ-carboxyglutamic acid of protein C (PC-Gla) for sepsis treatment,” Advanced Materials, vol. 27, no. 42, pp. 6637–6643, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Chopra, P. Das, H. Golden, D. E. Dostal, L. E. Watson, and A. C. Sharma, “Norepinephrine induces systolic failure and inhibits antiapoptotic genes in a polymicrobial septic rat model,” Life Sciences, vol. 87, no. 23-26, pp. 672–678, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2020 Xiaowen Zheng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

610

Downloads

1260

Citations