Chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections cause significant morbidity in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). Over years to decades, P. aeruginosa adapts genetically as it establishes chronic lung infections. Nonsynonymous mutations in lasR, the quorum-sensing (QS) master regulator, are common in CF. In laboratory strains of P. aeruginosa, LasR activates transcription of dozens of genes, including that for another QS regulator, RhlR. Despite the frequency with which lasR coding variants have been reported to occur in P. aeruginosa CF isolates, little is known about their consequences for QS. We sequenced lasR from 2,583 P. aeruginosa CF isolates. The lasR sequences of 580 isolates (22%) coded for polypeptides that differed from the conserved LasR polypeptides of well-studied laboratory strains. This collection included 173 unique lasR coding variants, 116 of which were either missense or nonsense mutations. We studied 31 of these variants. About one-sixth of the variant LasR proteins were functional, including 3 with nonsense mutations, and in some LasR-null isolates, genes that are LasR dependent in laboratory strains were nonetheless expressed. Furthermore, about half of the LasR-null isolates retained RhlR activity. Therefore, in some CF isolates the QS hierarchy is altered such that RhlR quorum sensing is independent of LasR regulation. Our analysis challenges the view that QS-silent P. aeruginosa is selected during the course of a chronic CF lung infection. Rather, some lasR sequence variants retain functionality, and many employ an alternate QS strategy involving RhlR.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive, fatal interstitial lung disease (ILD) of unknown etiology. Introduction of acid into the respiratory tree can produce pulmonary fibrosis. Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) has previously been associated with several other respiratory conditions, including pneumonia, bronchitis, and asthma. To investigate prospectively the possible association of GER and IPF, 17 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven IPF and eight control patients with ILD other than IPF underwent dual-channel, ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring. Sixteen of 17 patients with IPF had abnormal distal and/or proximal esophageal acid exposure compared with four of eight control patients (p = 0.02). In the patients with IPF, mean percent distal total (13.6 versus 3.34, p = 0.006), distal upright (12.4 versus 5.1, p = 0.04), distal supine (14.7 versus 0.88, p = 0.02), and proximal supine (7.48 versus 0.24, p = 0.04) esophageal acid exposure times were significantly greater than those in control patients. Only four patients with IPF (25%) with increased acid exposure had typical reflux symptoms such as heartburn or regurgitation. Patients with IPF have a high prevalence of increased esophageal acid exposure, usually without typical GER symptoms. GER in these patients tends to occur at night and extend into the proximal esophagus. Acid reflux may be a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of IPF.

No abstract

CarterThe purpose of this form is to provide readers of your manuscript with information about your other interests that could influence how they receive and understand your work. The form is designed to be completed electronically and stored electronically. It contains programming that allows appropriate data display. Each author should submit a separate form and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the submitted information. The form is in six parts. Identifying information.The work under consideration for publication.This section asks for information about the work that you have submitted for publication. The time frame for this reporting is that of the work itself, from the initial conception and planning to the present. The requested information is about resources that you received, either directly or indirectly (via your institution), to enable you to complete the work. Checking "No" means that you did the work without receiving any financial support from any third party --that is, the work was supported by funds from the same institution that pays your salary and that institution did not receive third-party funds with which to pay you. If you or your institution received funds from a third party to support the work, such as a government granting agency, charitable foundation or commercial sponsor, check "Yes". Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work.This section asks about your financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work. You should disclose interactions with ANY entity that could be considered broadly relevant to the work. For example, if your article is about testing an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antagonist in lung cancer, you should report all associations with entities pursuing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in cancer in general, not just in the area of EGFR or lung cancer.Report all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid) directly to you or your institution on your behalf over the 36 months prior to submission of the work. This should include all monies from sources with relevance to the submitted work, not just monies from the entity that sponsored the research. Please note that your interactions with the work's sponsor that are outside the submitted work should also be listed here. If there is any question, it is usually better to disclose a relationship than not to do so.For grants you have received for work outside the submitted work, you should disclose support ONLY from entities that could be perceived to be affected financially by the published work, such as drug companies, or foundations supported by entities that could be perceived to have a financial stake in the outcome. Public funding sources, such as government agencies, charitable foundations or academic institutions, need not be disclosed. For example, if a government agency sponsored a study in which you have been involved and d...

No abstract