ArticlePloS one2022
An optimized method of extracting and quantifying active Neutrophil serine proteases from human whole blood cells.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 inhibition with brensocatib reduces the activity of all major neutrophil serine proteases in patients with bronchiectasis: results from the WILLOW trial.Respiratory research · 2023Trial
- Impact of dipeptidyl peptidase I and neutrophil serine proteases on neutrophil functional responses.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Neutrophilic inflammation in bronchiectasis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025Review
- Neutrophil proteases are protective against SARS-CoV-2 by degrading the spike protein and dampening virus-mediated inflammation.JCI insight · 2024Article
- Brensocatib (an oral, reversible inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1) attenuates disease progression in two animal models of rheumatoid arthritis.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Brensocatib, an oral, reversible inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase 1, mitigates interferon-α-accelerated lupus nephritis in mice.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- The pharmacokinetic profile of brensocatib and its effect on pharmacodynamic biomarkers including NE, PR3, and CatG in various rodent species.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeNeutrophil serine proteases (NSPs) are implicated in numerous inflammatory diseases. Thus, a robust methodology to monitor and quantify NSPs is important to study disease progression and evaluate the effect of pharmacological interventions. A comparison of the various methods used to extract NSPs from neutrophil granulocytes has not been published, providing the impetus to conduct this method optimization and comparison study.
methodsTwo NSP recovery methodologies were evaluated on samples from five human donors: zymosan stimulation and cell pellet extraction. For the zymosan stimulation method, 1 mL donor blood was added to zymosan and samples were incubated at 37°C for 30 min while shaking. Samples were then centrifuged, and the plasma was collected for quantitation of NSP activity. For the cell pellet extraction procedure, 2 mL whole blood samples were centrifuged into white blood cell pellets following red blood cell lysis. To each pellet, three sequential lysis steps were performed using either 0.05% Nonidet P-40 Substitute (NP40) or 0.02% Triton X-100 lysis buffers under agitation followed by centrifugation. NSP activities were quantified using an exogenous peptide substrate specific to each of the three NSPs being analyzed: neutrophil elastase, cathepsin G, and proteinase 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The zymosan stimulation method resulted in lower recovery of active NSPs and was unable to stimulate significant release of active cathepsin G. In contrast, the NP40 pellet extraction method showed consistent inter-donor NSP release with greater recoveries of active NSPs than the Triton method or the zymosan stimulation method. Overall, the pellet extraction procedure provided 13.3-fold greater recovery of active neutrophil elastase, 283-fold greater recovery of active cathepsin G, and 2.9-fold greater recovery of active proteinase 3 than the zymosan method.
conclusionThe NP40 cell pellet extraction method resulted in greater extraction of active NSPs compared to the other methods investigated here, which may allow for a more accurate and complete biomarker profile when evaluating human clinical samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.