Cargando…

A longitudinal study highlights shared aspects of the transcriptomic response to cardiogenic and septic shock

BACKGROUND: Septic shock (SS) and cardiogenic shock (CS) are two types of circulatory shock with a different etiology. Several studies have described the molecular alterations in SS patients, whereas the molecular factors involved in CS have been poorly investigated. We aimed to assess in the whole...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Braga, Daniele, Barcella, Matteo, Herpain, Antoine, Aletti, Federico, Kistler, Erik B., Bollen Pinto, Bernardo, Bendjelid, Karim, Barlassina, Cristina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6921511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31856860
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2670-8
_version_ 1783481176607948800
author Braga, Daniele
Barcella, Matteo
Herpain, Antoine
Aletti, Federico
Kistler, Erik B.
Bollen Pinto, Bernardo
Bendjelid, Karim
Barlassina, Cristina
author_facet Braga, Daniele
Barcella, Matteo
Herpain, Antoine
Aletti, Federico
Kistler, Erik B.
Bollen Pinto, Bernardo
Bendjelid, Karim
Barlassina, Cristina
author_sort Braga, Daniele
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Septic shock (SS) and cardiogenic shock (CS) are two types of circulatory shock with a different etiology. Several studies have described the molecular alterations in SS patients, whereas the molecular factors involved in CS have been poorly investigated. We aimed to assess in the whole blood of CS and SS patients, using septic patients without shock (SC) as controls, transcriptomic modifications that occur over 1 week after ICU admission and are common to the two types of shock. METHODS: We performed whole blood RNA sequencing in 21 SS, 11 CS, and 5 SC. In shock patients, blood samples were collected within 16 h from ICU admission (T1), 48 h after ICU admission (T2), and at day 7 or before discharge (T3). In controls, blood samples were available at T1 and T2. Gene expression changes over time have been studied in CS, SS, and SC separately with a paired analysis. Genes with p value < 0.01 (Benjamini-Hochberg multiple test correction) were defined differentially expressed (DEGs). We used gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) to identify the biological processes and transcriptional regulators significantly enriched in both types of shock. RESULTS: In both CS and SS patients, GO terms of inflammatory response and pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) were downregulated following ICU admission, whereas gene sets of DNA replication were upregulated. At the gene level, we observed that alarmins, interleukin receptors, PRRs, inflammasome, and DNA replication genes significantly changed their expression in CS and SS, but not in SC. Analysis of transcription factor targets showed in both CS and SS patients, an enrichment of CCAAT-enhancer-binding protein beta (CEBPB) targets in genes downregulated over time and an enrichment of E2F targets in genes with an increasing expression trend. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study supports, within the limits of a small sample size, the role of alarmins, PRRs, DNA replication, and immunoglobulins in the pathophysiology of circulatory shock, either in the presence of infection or not. We hypothesize that these genes could be potential targets of therapeutic interventions in CS and SS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02141607. Registered 19 May 2014.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6921511
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69215112019-12-30 A longitudinal study highlights shared aspects of the transcriptomic response to cardiogenic and septic shock Braga, Daniele Barcella, Matteo Herpain, Antoine Aletti, Federico Kistler, Erik B. Bollen Pinto, Bernardo Bendjelid, Karim Barlassina, Cristina Crit Care Research BACKGROUND: Septic shock (SS) and cardiogenic shock (CS) are two types of circulatory shock with a different etiology. Several studies have described the molecular alterations in SS patients, whereas the molecular factors involved in CS have been poorly investigated. We aimed to assess in the whole blood of CS and SS patients, using septic patients without shock (SC) as controls, transcriptomic modifications that occur over 1 week after ICU admission and are common to the two types of shock. METHODS: We performed whole blood RNA sequencing in 21 SS, 11 CS, and 5 SC. In shock patients, blood samples were collected within 16 h from ICU admission (T1), 48 h after ICU admission (T2), and at day 7 or before discharge (T3). In controls, blood samples were available at T1 and T2. Gene expression changes over time have been studied in CS, SS, and SC separately with a paired analysis. Genes with p value < 0.01 (Benjamini-Hochberg multiple test correction) were defined differentially expressed (DEGs). We used gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) to identify the biological processes and transcriptional regulators significantly enriched in both types of shock. RESULTS: In both CS and SS patients, GO terms of inflammatory response and pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) were downregulated following ICU admission, whereas gene sets of DNA replication were upregulated. At the gene level, we observed that alarmins, interleukin receptors, PRRs, inflammasome, and DNA replication genes significantly changed their expression in CS and SS, but not in SC. Analysis of transcription factor targets showed in both CS and SS patients, an enrichment of CCAAT-enhancer-binding protein beta (CEBPB) targets in genes downregulated over time and an enrichment of E2F targets in genes with an increasing expression trend. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study supports, within the limits of a small sample size, the role of alarmins, PRRs, DNA replication, and immunoglobulins in the pathophysiology of circulatory shock, either in the presence of infection or not. We hypothesize that these genes could be potential targets of therapeutic interventions in CS and SS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02141607. Registered 19 May 2014. BioMed Central 2019-12-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6921511/ /pubmed/31856860 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2670-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Braga, Daniele
Barcella, Matteo
Herpain, Antoine
Aletti, Federico
Kistler, Erik B.
Bollen Pinto, Bernardo
Bendjelid, Karim
Barlassina, Cristina
A longitudinal study highlights shared aspects of the transcriptomic response to cardiogenic and septic shock
title A longitudinal study highlights shared aspects of the transcriptomic response to cardiogenic and septic shock
title_full A longitudinal study highlights shared aspects of the transcriptomic response to cardiogenic and septic shock
title_fullStr A longitudinal study highlights shared aspects of the transcriptomic response to cardiogenic and septic shock
title_full_unstemmed A longitudinal study highlights shared aspects of the transcriptomic response to cardiogenic and septic shock
title_short A longitudinal study highlights shared aspects of the transcriptomic response to cardiogenic and septic shock
title_sort longitudinal study highlights shared aspects of the transcriptomic response to cardiogenic and septic shock
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6921511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31856860
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2670-8
work_keys_str_mv AT bragadaniele alongitudinalstudyhighlightssharedaspectsofthetranscriptomicresponsetocardiogenicandsepticshock
AT barcellamatteo alongitudinalstudyhighlightssharedaspectsofthetranscriptomicresponsetocardiogenicandsepticshock
AT herpainantoine alongitudinalstudyhighlightssharedaspectsofthetranscriptomicresponsetocardiogenicandsepticshock
AT alettifederico alongitudinalstudyhighlightssharedaspectsofthetranscriptomicresponsetocardiogenicandsepticshock
AT kistlererikb alongitudinalstudyhighlightssharedaspectsofthetranscriptomicresponsetocardiogenicandsepticshock
AT bollenpintobernardo alongitudinalstudyhighlightssharedaspectsofthetranscriptomicresponsetocardiogenicandsepticshock
AT bendjelidkarim alongitudinalstudyhighlightssharedaspectsofthetranscriptomicresponsetocardiogenicandsepticshock
AT barlassinacristina alongitudinalstudyhighlightssharedaspectsofthetranscriptomicresponsetocardiogenicandsepticshock
AT bragadaniele longitudinalstudyhighlightssharedaspectsofthetranscriptomicresponsetocardiogenicandsepticshock
AT barcellamatteo longitudinalstudyhighlightssharedaspectsofthetranscriptomicresponsetocardiogenicandsepticshock
AT herpainantoine longitudinalstudyhighlightssharedaspectsofthetranscriptomicresponsetocardiogenicandsepticshock
AT alettifederico longitudinalstudyhighlightssharedaspectsofthetranscriptomicresponsetocardiogenicandsepticshock
AT kistlererikb longitudinalstudyhighlightssharedaspectsofthetranscriptomicresponsetocardiogenicandsepticshock
AT bollenpintobernardo longitudinalstudyhighlightssharedaspectsofthetranscriptomicresponsetocardiogenicandsepticshock
AT bendjelidkarim longitudinalstudyhighlightssharedaspectsofthetranscriptomicresponsetocardiogenicandsepticshock
AT barlassinacristina longitudinalstudyhighlightssharedaspectsofthetranscriptomicresponsetocardiogenicandsepticshock