Ortega, Victor E.

AbstractIntroductionPrevious bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) proteomic analysis has evaluated limited numbers of subjects for only a few proteins of interest, which may differ between asthma and normal controls. Our objective was to examine a more comprehensive inflammatory biomarker panel in quantitative proteomic analysis for a large asthma cohort to identify molecular phenotypes distinguishing severe from nonsevere asthma.MethodsBronchoalveolar lavage fluid from 48 severe and 77 nonsevere adult asthma subjects were assessed for 75 inflammatory proteins, normalized to BALF total protein concentration. Validation of BALF differences was sought through equivalent protein analysis of autologous sputum. Subjects' data, stratified by asthma severity, were analysed by standard statistical tests, principal component analysis and 5 machine learning algorithms.ResultsThe severe group had lower lung function and greater health care utilization. Significantly increased BALF proteins for severe asthma compared to nonsevere asthma were fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF2), TGFα, IL1Ra, IL2, IL4, CCL8, CCL13 and CXCL7 and significantly decreased were platelet‐derived growth factor a‐a dimer (PDGFaa), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), interleukin 5 (IL5), CCL17, CCL22, CXCL9 and CXCL10. Four protein differences were replicated in sputum. FGF2, PDGFaa and CXCL7 were independently identified by 5 machine learning algorithms as the most important variables for discriminating severe and nonsevere asthma. Increased and decreased proteins identified for the severe cluster showed significant protein–protein interactions for chemokine and cytokine signalling, growth factor activity, and eosinophil and neutrophil chemotaxis differing between subjects with severe and nonsevere asthma.ConclusionThese inflammatory protein results confirm altered airway remodelling and cytokine/chemokine activity recruiting leukocytes into the airways of severe compared to nonsevere asthma as important processes even in stable status.

Abstract Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a major public health challenge that contributes greatly to mortality and morbidity worldwide. Although it has long been recognized that the epithelium is altered in COPD, there has been little focus on targeting it to modify the disease course. Therefore, mechanisms that disrupt epithelial cell function in patients with COPD are poorly understood. In this study, we sought to determine whether epigenetic reprogramming of the cell-cell adhesion molecule E-cadherin, encoded by the CDH1 gene, disrupts epithelial integrity. By reducing these epigenetic marks, we can restore epithelial integrity and rescue alveolar airspace destruction. We used differentiated normal and COPD-derived primary human airway epithelial cells, genetically manipulated mouse tracheal epithelial cells, and mouse and human precision-cut lung slices to assess the effects of epigenetic reprogramming. We show that the loss of CDH1 in COPD is due to increased DNA methylation site at the CDH1 enhancer D through the downregulation of the ten-eleven translocase methylcytosine dioxygenase (TET) enzyme TET1. Increased DNA methylation at the enhancer D region decreases the enrichment of RNA polymerase II binding. Remarkably, treatment of human precision-cut slices derived from patients with COPD with the DNA demethylation agent 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine decreased cell damage and reduced air space enlargement in the diseased tissue. Here, we present a novel mechanism that targets epigenetic modifications to reverse the tissue remodeling in human COPD lungs and serves as a proof of concept for developing a disease-modifying target.

Importance People who smoked cigarettes may experience respiratory symptoms without spirometric airflow obstruction. These individuals are typically excluded from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) trials and lack evidence-based therapies. Objective To define the natural history of persons with tobacco exposure and preserved spirometry (TEPS) and symptoms (symptomatic TEPS). Design, Setting, and Participants SPIROMICS II was an extension of SPIROMICS I, a multicenter study of persons aged 40 to 80 years who smoked cigarettes (>20 pack-years) with or without COPD and controls without tobacco exposure or airflow obstruction. Participants were enrolled in SPIROMICS I and II from November 10, 2010, through July 31, 2015, and followed up through July 31, 2021. Exposures Participants in SPIROMICS I underwent spirometry, 6-minute walk distance testing, assessment of respiratory symptoms, and computed tomography of the chest at yearly visits for 3 to 4 years. Participants in SPIROMICS II had 1 additional in-person visit 5 to 7 years after enrollment in SPIROMICS I. Respiratory symptoms were assessed with the COPD Assessment Test (range, 0 to 40; higher scores indicate more severe symptoms). Participants with symptomatic TEPS had normal spirometry (postbronchodilator ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second [FEV 1 ] to forced vital capacity >0.70) and COPD Assessment Test scores of 10 or greater. Participants with asymptomatic TEPS had normal spirometry and COPD Assessment Test scores of less than 10. Patient-reported respiratory symptoms and exacerbations were assessed every 4 months via phone calls. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was assessment for accelerated decline in lung function (FEV 1 ) in participants with symptomatic TEPS vs asymptomatic TEPS. Secondary outcomes included development of COPD defined by spirometry, respiratory symptoms, rates of respiratory exacerbations, and progression of computed tomographic–defined airway wall thickening or emphysema. Results Of 1397 study participants, 226 had symptomatic TEPS (mean age, 60.1 [SD, 9.8] years; 134 were women [59%]) and 269 had asymptomatic TEPS (mean age, 63.1 [SD, 9.1] years; 134 were women [50%]). At a median follow-up of 5.76 years, the decline in FEV 1 was −31.3 mL/y for participants with symptomatic TEPS vs −38.8 mL/y for those with asymptomatic TEPS (between-group difference, −7.5 mL/y [95% CI, −16.6 to 1.6 mL/y]). The cumulative incidence of COPD was 33.0% among participants with symptomatic TEPS vs 31.6% among those with asymptomatic TEPS (hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.46]). Participants with symptomatic TEPS had significantly more respiratory exacerbations than those with asymptomatic TEPS (0.23 vs 0.08 exacerbations per person-year, respectively; rate ratio, 2.38 [95% CI, 1.71 to 3.31], P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance Participants with symptomatic TEPS did not have accelerated rates of decline in FEV 1 or increased incidence of COPD vs those with asymptomatic TEPS, but participants with symptomatic TEPS did experience significantly more respiratory exacerbations over a median follow-up of 5.8 years.