Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38504349›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2024

Monocyte state 1 (MS1) cells in critically ill patients with sepsis or non-infectious conditions: association with disease course and host response.

Giuseppe G F Leite, Justin de Brabander, Erik H A Michels, Joe M Butler, Olaf L Cremer, Brendon P Scicluna, Timothy E Sweeney, Miguel Reyes, Reinaldo Salomao, Hessel Peters-Sengers and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Giuseppe G F LeiteCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine (CEMM), Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. g.g.f.l.leite@amsterdamumc.nl.
Justin de BrabanderCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine (CEMM), Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Erik H A MichelsCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine (CEMM), Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Joe M ButlerCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine (CEMM), Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Olaf L CremerDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Brendon P SciclunaCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine (CEMM), Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Timothy E SweeneyInflammatix Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA.
Miguel ReyesDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Genentech, South San Francisco, USA.
Reinaldo SalomaoDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Hessel Peters-SengersCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine (CEMM), Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tom van der PollCenter for Experimental and Molecular Medicine (CEMM), Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NLUniversidade Federal de São Paulo · BRUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Malta · MT

Funding

Center for Translational Molecular Medicine Grant 04I-201Dutch Kidney Foundation 19OK009European Commission 847422European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program 847786Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2022/06085-7
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSepsis is a life-threatening condition arising from an aberrant host response to infection. Recent single-cell RNA sequencing investigations identified an immature bone-marrow-derived CD14

methodsWe used the transcriptome deconvolution method (CIBERSORTx) to estimate the percentage of MS1 cells from blood RNA profiles of patients with sepsis admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We compared these profiles to ICU patients without infection and to healthy controls. Host response dysregulation was further studied by gene co-expression network and gene set enrichment analyses of blood leukocytes, and measurement of 15 plasma biomarkers indicative of pathways implicated in sepsis pathogenesis.

resultsSepsis patients (n = 332) were divided into three equally-sized groups based on their MS1 cell levels (low, intermediate, and high). MS1 groups did not differ in demographics or comorbidities. The intermediate and high MS1 groups presented with higher disease severity and more often had shock. MS1 cell abundance did not differ between survivors and non-survivors, or between patients who did or did not acquire a secondary infection. Higher MS1 cell percentages were associated with downregulation of lymphocyte-related and interferon response genes in blood leukocytes, with concurrent upregulation of inflammatory response pathways, including tumor necrosis factor signaling via nuclear factor-κB. Previously described sepsis host response transcriptomic subtypes showed different MS1 cell abundances, and MS1 cell percentages positively correlated with the "quantitative sepsis response signature" and "molecular degree of perturbation" scores. Plasma biomarker levels, indicative of inflammation, endothelial cell activation, and coagulation activation, were largely similar between MS1 groups. In ICU patients without infection (n = 215), MS1 cell percentages and their relation with disease severity, shock, and host response dysregulation were highly similar to those in sepsis patients.

conclusionsHigh MS1 cell percentages are associated with increased disease severity and shock in critically ill patients with sepsis or a non-infectious condition. High MS1 cell abundance likely indicates broad immune dysregulation, entailing not only immunosuppression but also anomalies reflecting exaggerated inflammatory responses.

Indexed as

MonocytesSepsisBiomarkersCritical IllnessHumansIntensive Care UnitsLeukocytesBiomarkersHyperinflammation and immune suppressionMyeloid-derived suppressor cellsShock

Identifiers

PMID38504349
PMCPMC10953179
OpenAlexW4392949737

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.