This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Natural cytokine-specific autoantibodies (c-aAb) have been measured in healthy and diseased individuals, and have been considered as both endogenous immune-regulators and pathogenic factors. Overall, the etiology and potential pathology of c-aAb are still undefined. To further characterize the sero-prevalence, predictors and consequences of high c-aAb levels, we performed the largest population-based study of c-aAb to date, using participants and epidemiological data from the Danish Blood Donor Study. Using a validated bead-based multiplex assay we assessed plasma levels of IL-1α, IL-6, IL-10, IFNα and GM-CSF-specific c-aAb in 8,972 healthy blood donors. Trace levels of at least one of the investigated c-aAb could be measured in 86% of the participants. The presence of high levels of potentially inhibitory c-aAb was generally associated with increasing age and male or female sex, depending on the c-aAb in question. A negative correlation between high levels of IL-6-specific c-aAb and plasma levels of C-reactive protein was observed, indicating cytokine-neutralizing levels of c-aAb in healthy blood donors. There was no substantial correlation between high levels of the five individual c-aAb investigated in this study. These data suggest that autoimmunity against endogenous cytokines is a relatively common phenomenon in healthy individuals, and that predictive factors for high, potentially neutralizing c-aAb levels vary depending on the cytokine in question, and may differ from predictors of general c-aAb presence.
Three collagen fragments (PRO-C3, C6M and PRO-C5) identified liver fibrosis progressors. These biomarkers may improve patient stratification and monitor treatment efficacy in studies with fibrosis as clinical endpoint.
Pulmonary fibrosis has been identified as a main factor leading to pulmonary dysfunction and poor quality of life in post-recovery Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) survivor’s consequent to SARS-Cov-2 infection. Thus there is an urgent medical need for identification of readily available biomarkers that in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection are able to; (1) identify patients in most need of medical care prior to admittance to an intensive care unit (ICU), and; (2) identify patients post-infection at risk of developing persistent fibrosis of lungs with subsequent impaired quality of life and increased morbidity and mortality. An intense amount of research have focused on wound healing and Extracellular Matrix (ECM) remodelling of the lungs related to lung function decline in pulmonary fibrosis (PF). A range of non-invasive serological biomarkers, reflecting tissue remodelling, and fibrosis have been shown to predict risk of acute exacerbations, lung function decline and mortality in PF and other interstitial lung diseases (Sand et al. in Respir Res 19:82, 2018). We suggest that lessons learned from such PF studies of the pathological processes leading to lung function decline could be used to better identify patients infected with SARS-Co-V2 at most risk of acute deterioration or persistent fibrotic damage of the lung and could consequently be used to guide treatment decisions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.