Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34698129›Full record

ArticleClinics and practice2021

Local Defence System in Healthy Lungs.

Elizabeta Lohova, Zane Vitenberga-Verza, Dzintra Kazoka, Mara Pilmane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinics and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

4 authors.

Elizabeta LohovaInstitute of Anatomy and Anthropology, Riga Stradins University, LV-1010 Riga, Latvia.
Zane Vitenberga-VerzaInstitute of Anatomy and Anthropology, Riga Stradins University, LV-1010 Riga, Latvia.ORCID 0000-0002-9650-3504
Dzintra KazokaInstitute of Anatomy and Anthropology, Riga Stradins University, LV-1010 Riga, Latvia.ORCID 0000-0003-0816-6446
Mara PilmaneInstitute of Anatomy and Anthropology, Riga Stradins University, LV-1010 Riga, Latvia.ORCID 0000-0001-9804-4666

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe respiratory system is one of the main entrance gates for infection. The aim of this work was to compare the appearance of specific mucosal pro-inflammatory and common anti-microbial defence factors in healthy lung tissue, from an ontogenetic point of view. MATERIALS AND

methodsHealthy lung tissues were collected from 15 patients (three females and 12 males) in the age range from 18 to 86. Immunohistochemistry to human β defensin 2 (HBD-2), human β defensin 3 (HBD-3), human β defensin 4 (HBD-4), cathelicidine (LL-37) and interleukine 17A (IL-17A) were performed.

resultsThe lung tissue material contained bronchial and lung parenchyma material in which no histological changes, connected with the inflammatory process, were detected. During the study, various statistically significant differences were detected in immunoreactive expression between different factors in all lung tissue structures.

conclusionAll healthy lung structures, but especially the cartilage, alveolar epithelium and the alveolar macrophages, are the main locations for the baseline synthesis of antimicrobial proteins and IL-17A. Cartilage shows high functional plasticity of this structure, including significant antimicrobial activity and participation in local lung protection response. Interrelated changes between antimicrobial proteins in different tissue confirm baseline synergistical cooperation of all these factors in healthy lung host defence.

Indexed as

factorshealthy lungsimmunitylocal defencerespiratory system

Identifiers

PMID34698129
PMCPMC8544484

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.