Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28107457›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Novel Analysis of Immune Cells from Nasal Microbiopsy Demonstrates Reliable, Reproducible Data for Immune Populations, and Superior Cytokine Detection Compared to Nasal Wash.

Simon P Jochems, Katherine Piddock, Jamie Rylance, Hugh Adler, Beatriz F Carniel, Andrea Collins, Jenna F Gritzfeld, Carole Hancock, Helen Hill, Jesus Reiné and 8 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Simon P JochemsDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Katherine PiddockDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Jamie RylanceDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Hugh AdlerDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Beatriz F CarnielDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Andrea CollinsDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Jenna F GritzfeldDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Carole HancockDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Helen HillDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Jesus ReinéDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Alexandra SeddonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Carla SolórzanoDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Syba SunnyDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Ashleigh TrimbleDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Angela D WrightDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Seher ZaidiDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Stephen B GordonMalawi Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, Blantyre, Malawi.
Daniela M FerreiraDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M011569/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The morbidity and mortality related to respiratory tract diseases is enormous, with hundreds of millions of individuals afflicted and four million people dying each year. Understanding the immunological processes in the mucosa that govern outcome following pathogenic encounter could lead to novel therapies. There is a need to study responses at mucosal surfaces in humans for two reasons: (i) Immunological findings in mice, or other animals, often fail to translate to humans. (ii) Compartmentalization of the immune system dictates a need to study sites where pathogens reside. In this manuscript, we describe two novel non-invasive nasal mucosal microsampling techniques and their use for measuring immunological parameters: 1) using nasal curettes to collect cells from the inferior turbinate and; 2) absorptive matrices to collect nasal lining fluid. Both techniques were well tolerated and yielded reproducible and robust data. We demonstrated differences in immune populations and activation state in nasal mucosa compared to blood as well as compared to nasopharyngeal lumen in healthy adults. We also found superior cytokine detection with absorptive matrices compared to nasal wash. These techniques are promising new tools that will facilitate studies of the immunological signatures underlying susceptibility and resistance to respiratory infections.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCytokinesFlow CytometryHumansMiddle AgedNasal MucosaReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultCytokines

Identifiers

PMID28107457
PMCPMC5249128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.