Locytic AECOPD; {P,0.01 vs. the (-)-Calyculin A chemical Eliglustat site information Neutrophilic AECOPD; `P,0.05 vs. the Paucigranulocytic AECOPD; | P,0.05 vs. the Neutrophilic AECOPD; 1P,0.05 vs. the Eosinophilic AECOPD; “P,0.05 vs. the Mixed granulocytic AECOPD. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057678.tTable 3. The levels of serum and sputum inflammatory mediators in AECOPD patients.Eosinophilic Blood CRP (mg/L) Sputum CRP (ug/L) Blood MMP9 (ng/mL) Sputum MM P-9 (ng/mL) Blood IL-6 (pg/mL) Sputum IL-6 (pg/mL) Blood SAA (mg/L) 10(8.4?3.2) 48(24?12) 1030(406?497) 528(338?159) 19(12?2) 362(268?70) 36(27?4)Neutrophilic 16(12?9) * 145(78?70)+* 750(516?161) 1836(1045?891)+ 31(17?7)+ 918(447?372)+* 84(64?16)+*+Mixed granulocytic 14.8(14.3?8.2) * 199(175?37)+*” 1760(828?810) 4914(3140?390)+*” 125(47?32)+*” 2541(765?890)+* 142(52?53)+*+Paucigranulocytic 12(7.3?5) 22(11?0) 680(385?427) 930(293?117) 16(7.0?2) 459(167?089) 32(23?2)control 0.83(0.5?.6) 7(3.8?6) 355(165?48) 392(93?04) 5.7(3.4?.7) 48(31?40) 3.8(2.9?.5)Data are expressed as median (IQR). The difference among groups was determined by Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test. *P,0.05 vs. the Eosinophilic; +P,0.05 vs. the Paucigranulocytic; “P,0.05 vs. the Neutrophilic; All of the patient groups were significantly higher than that in the controls (P,0.01). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057678.tSputum Cellular Phenotypes in AECOPDTable 16985061 4. Clinical characteristics of patients with stable COPD.Eosinophilic N Age (years) BODE score GOLD I GOLD II GOLD III GOLD IV Post-FEV1 (L) Post-FEV1/pred ( ) FEV1/FVC ( ) Volume of sputum (mL) Blood leukocytes (109/L) Blood neutrophils (10 /L) Blood eosinophils (109/L) Total cell count (10 /mL) Neutrophils (106/mL) eosinophils (106/mL) macrophages (10 /mL) lymphocytes (106/mL) epithelial cells (106/mL) Squamous cells (106/mL)6 6Neutrophilic 29 65.4611.2 3.0(2.0?.8)*” 2 5 15 7 1.2860.44` 40.867.6` 60.468.9 13(9?7)*” 8.3(6.7?.2)*” 5.1(3.5?.2) 0.17(0.0?.35) 15.3(7.2?1.1)*”Mixed granulocytic 3 60.3610.8 3.0(3.0?.0)*” 0 0 1 2 0.7860.051` 30.064.1` 58.467.3 14(9?8)*” 7.8(7.0?.2)`* 4.8(4.1?.3) 0.7(0.53?.9){” 16.4(10.6?9.7)*” 12.1(7.4?6.3)*” 1.8(0.9?.9)”{ 2.2(0.2?1.4) 0.0(0.0?.12) 0.9(0.5?.4) 0.7(0.3?.9)Paucigranulocytic 24 62.8610.1 0.0(0.0?.0) 2 11 23148522 11 0 1.3960.49 49.0617.4 62.467.6 6(2.5?0) 7.2(6.2?.4) 4.9(3.9?.7) 0.11(0.0?.28) 1.0(0.5?.2) 0.2(0.1?.6) 0.0(0.0?.1) 0.7(0.2?.3) 0.0(0.0?.02) 1.6(0.7?.7) 1.2(0.6?.1)5 66.0613.0 1.0(0.0?.0) 2 2 1 0 1.3360.42 43.3616.0 61.169.3 4(2?) 6.4(5.3?.8) 4.3(3.4?.1) 0.67(0.54?.8){” 1.4(0.8?.2) 0.7(0.4?.1) 0.3(0.2?.9)”{ 0.9(0.3?.1) 0.0(0.0?.03) 0.8(0.4?.2) 0.3(0.0?.7)10.3(6.5?4.2)*” 0.1(0.0?.2) 1.4(0.3?.9) 0.0(0.0?.42) 0.9(0.3?.7) 0.8(0.2?.4)Data are expressed as mean 6 SD or median (IQR). The difference among groups was determined by ANOVA, Kruskall Wallis, Mann-Whitney U test or Chi square. *P,0.01 vs. the Eosinophilic COPD; “P,0.01 vs. the Paucigranulocytic COPD; {P,0.01 vs. the Neutrophilic COPD; `P,0.05 vs. the Paucigranulocytic COPD; 1P,0.05 vs. the Neutrophilic COPD. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057678.tanalyses were performed using SPSS17.0 software. A p value of ,0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results Studying patientsTo determine the inflammatory cellular phenotypes, a total of 296 patients with COPD were screened and 83 patients withTable 5. The levels of serum and sputum inflammatory mediators in stable COPD patients.Eosinophilic Blood CRP (mg/L) Sputum CRP (ug/L) Blood MMP-9 (ng/mL) Sputum MMP-9 (ng/mL) Blood IL-6 (pg/mL) Sputum IL-6 (pg/mL) Blood SAA (mg/L) 3.8(3?.7.Locytic AECOPD; {P,0.01 vs. the Neutrophilic AECOPD; `P,0.05 vs. the Paucigranulocytic AECOPD; | P,0.05 vs. the Neutrophilic AECOPD; 1P,0.05 vs. the Eosinophilic AECOPD; “P,0.05 vs. the Mixed granulocytic AECOPD. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057678.tTable 3. The levels of serum and sputum inflammatory mediators in AECOPD patients.Eosinophilic Blood CRP (mg/L) Sputum CRP (ug/L) Blood MMP9 (ng/mL) Sputum MM P-9 (ng/mL) Blood IL-6 (pg/mL) Sputum IL-6 (pg/mL) Blood SAA (mg/L) 10(8.4?3.2) 48(24?12) 1030(406?497) 528(338?159) 19(12?2) 362(268?70) 36(27?4)Neutrophilic 16(12?9) * 145(78?70)+* 750(516?161) 1836(1045?891)+ 31(17?7)+ 918(447?372)+* 84(64?16)+*+Mixed granulocytic 14.8(14.3?8.2) * 199(175?37)+*” 1760(828?810) 4914(3140?390)+*” 125(47?32)+*” 2541(765?890)+* 142(52?53)+*+Paucigranulocytic 12(7.3?5) 22(11?0) 680(385?427) 930(293?117) 16(7.0?2) 459(167?089) 32(23?2)control 0.83(0.5?.6) 7(3.8?6) 355(165?48) 392(93?04) 5.7(3.4?.7) 48(31?40) 3.8(2.9?.5)Data are expressed as median (IQR). The difference among groups was determined by Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test. *P,0.05 vs. the Eosinophilic; +P,0.05 vs. the Paucigranulocytic; “P,0.05 vs. the Neutrophilic; All of the patient groups were significantly higher than that in the controls (P,0.01). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057678.tSputum Cellular Phenotypes in AECOPDTable 16985061 4. Clinical characteristics of patients with stable COPD.Eosinophilic N Age (years) BODE score GOLD I GOLD II GOLD III GOLD IV Post-FEV1 (L) Post-FEV1/pred ( ) FEV1/FVC ( ) Volume of sputum (mL) Blood leukocytes (109/L) Blood neutrophils (10 /L) Blood eosinophils (109/L) Total cell count (10 /mL) Neutrophils (106/mL) eosinophils (106/mL) macrophages (10 /mL) lymphocytes (106/mL) epithelial cells (106/mL) Squamous cells (106/mL)6 6Neutrophilic 29 65.4611.2 3.0(2.0?.8)*” 2 5 15 7 1.2860.44` 40.867.6` 60.468.9 13(9?7)*” 8.3(6.7?.2)*” 5.1(3.5?.2) 0.17(0.0?.35) 15.3(7.2?1.1)*”Mixed granulocytic 3 60.3610.8 3.0(3.0?.0)*” 0 0 1 2 0.7860.051` 30.064.1` 58.467.3 14(9?8)*” 7.8(7.0?.2)`* 4.8(4.1?.3) 0.7(0.53?.9){” 16.4(10.6?9.7)*” 12.1(7.4?6.3)*” 1.8(0.9?.9)”{ 2.2(0.2?1.4) 0.0(0.0?.12) 0.9(0.5?.4) 0.7(0.3?.9)Paucigranulocytic 24 62.8610.1 0.0(0.0?.0) 2 11 23148522 11 0 1.3960.49 49.0617.4 62.467.6 6(2.5?0) 7.2(6.2?.4) 4.9(3.9?.7) 0.11(0.0?.28) 1.0(0.5?.2) 0.2(0.1?.6) 0.0(0.0?.1) 0.7(0.2?.3) 0.0(0.0?.02) 1.6(0.7?.7) 1.2(0.6?.1)5 66.0613.0 1.0(0.0?.0) 2 2 1 0 1.3360.42 43.3616.0 61.169.3 4(2?) 6.4(5.3?.8) 4.3(3.4?.1) 0.67(0.54?.8){” 1.4(0.8?.2) 0.7(0.4?.1) 0.3(0.2?.9)”{ 0.9(0.3?.1) 0.0(0.0?.03) 0.8(0.4?.2) 0.3(0.0?.7)10.3(6.5?4.2)*” 0.1(0.0?.2) 1.4(0.3?.9) 0.0(0.0?.42) 0.9(0.3?.7) 0.8(0.2?.4)Data are expressed as mean 6 SD or median (IQR). The difference among groups was determined by ANOVA, Kruskall Wallis, Mann-Whitney U test or Chi square. *P,0.01 vs. the Eosinophilic COPD; “P,0.01 vs. the Paucigranulocytic COPD; {P,0.01 vs. the Neutrophilic COPD; `P,0.05 vs. the Paucigranulocytic COPD; 1P,0.05 vs. the Neutrophilic COPD. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057678.tanalyses were performed using SPSS17.0 software. A p value of ,0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results Studying patientsTo determine the inflammatory cellular phenotypes, a total of 296 patients with COPD were screened and 83 patients withTable 5. The levels of serum and sputum inflammatory mediators in stable COPD patients.Eosinophilic Blood CRP (mg/L) Sputum CRP (ug/L) Blood MMP-9 (ng/mL) Sputum MMP-9 (ng/mL) Blood IL-6 (pg/mL) Sputum IL-6 (pg/mL) Blood SAA (mg/L) 3.8(3?.7.
Related Posts
Ch the relational models of RMT, while the remaining two are
Ch the relational models of RMT, while the remaining two are identified as the asocial and the null interactions. We generalized this categorization to the case of any number N of social actions. We proposed that the categories of action fluxes offer suitable abstract representations of the social actions performed by dyads implementing the relational […]
E multilayers have been assembled on NPG surface, and 3 mg/mL PSS aqueous resolution and
E multilayers have been assembled on NPG surface, and 3 mg/mL PSS aqueous resolution and 2 mg/mL PAH aqueous resolution were employed to kind spacer layer. NPG films had been incubated overnight having a 1 mM ethanolic answer of cysteamine to kind a self-assembled monolayer of cysteamine around the surface of NPG films, resulting in […]
Ubicin induced apoptosis. (A) Outline of your doxorubicin induced apoptosis bypass screen applying U2OS cells.
Ubicin induced apoptosis. (A) Outline of your doxorubicin induced apoptosis bypass screen applying U2OS cells. Pools of shRNA have been transfected into retroviral packaging cell lines, and retrovirus transduced into U2OS cells followed by puromycin choice. Transduced U2OS cells were treated with 225 ng/ml Doxorubicin for 5 days, which led to apoptotic death of around […]