Exosomes mediate interepithelial transfer of functional P‐glycoprotein in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

Self Cite

Our proteomic analysis confirmed that the coagulation pathway is highly significantly deranged within nasal polyp tissue. The correlation between tissue- and mucus-derived exosomal fibrinolysis and coagulation protein alterations were strong, inverse, and highly significant. This lends further support to the emerging concept of exosomal proteomic analysis as a method to study chronic sinonasal inflammation.

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Highly multiplexed proteomic analysis reveals significant tissue and exosomal coagulation pathway derangement in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

Müller

Nocera

Dillon

et al. 2018

Self Cite

“…In addition to the study of inflammatory markers, nasal secretions may also be collected to characterize secreted microsomes that are representative of the nasal microbial environment . Bacteria, fungal organisms, and viruses can all be easily recovered from nasal secretions.…”

Section: Techniques For Collection Of Nasal Secretionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 In addition to the study of inflammatory markers, nasal secretions may also be collected to characterize secreted microsomes that are representative of the nasal microbial environment. 13 Bacteria, fungal organisms, and viruses can all be easily recovered from nasal secretions. Microbial collection is most commonly performed via nasal swab 14 or lavage, 15 the former of which has been shown to be representative of mucosal tissue sampling.…”

Section: Techniques For Collection Of Nasal Secretionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sample collection for laboratory‐based study of the nasal airway and sinuses: a research compendium

Massey

Valle

Abuzeid

et al. 2019

Self Cite

Background Collection of biologic samples from the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses is of critical importance to the study of infectious or inflammatory conditions that affect both upper and lower airways. Numerous techniques for the study of ex‐vivo samples exist, with specific applications, strengths, and weaknesses associated with each of them. In this compendium we summarize the available methods for collection of primary human samples and incorporate expert discussion of the pros, cons, and applications associated with each technique. Methods An expert panel containing members of the American Rhinologic Society's Research and Grants Committee compiled this educational reference. Rationale for use and the potential advantages and disadvantages are discussed. Research protocols and key references are enumerated. Results Sampling of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses can be achieved through a number of methods. Nonspecific sinonasal secretions may be collected via forced exhalation, nasal lavage, and nasal spray aspiration. Targeted collection of sinonasal secretions may be achieved via endoscopic placement of absorbent matrices. Nasal cytology or collection of superficial epithelium may be completed via brushing or scraping of endonasal structures. Collection of mucosal biopsies may be completed via sinonasal explant or full‐thickness biopsy. Conclusion Multiple sampling techniques are available to collect biologic samples from the sinonasal cavity. These techniques differ in their ease of application, reproducibility, sample yield, and utility for different sinonasal pathologies or research goals. An appreciation of the benefits and drawbacks of each approach will allow investigators to select the techniques most appropriate for achieving research objectives.

“…Exosomes are 30‐ to 150‐nm vesicles that are secreted by almost all cell types in the body and contain material specific to those cells; they offer an excellent substrate to study proteomic alterations. Exosomes can be isolated from nasal mucus using standardized ultracentrifugation and purification practices, and contain a wealth of biologic material, including protein, DNA, and messenger RNA . Thus, exosomal isolation is an effective minimally invasive substitute for tissue sampling, and can be more easily performed without the need for local anesthesia or disruption of the nasal mucosa.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Exosomes can be isolated from nasal mucus using standardized ultracentrifugation and purification practices, 8 and contain a wealth of biologic material, including protein, DNA, and messenger RNA. [9][10][11] Thus, exosomal isolation is an effective minimally invasive substitute for tissue sampling, and can be more easily performed without the need for local anesthesia or disruption of the nasal mucosa. In contrast to whole-mucus proteomic sampling methods, which are often poorly quantitatively representative of tissue protein levels, 12 the exosomal proteome is much more reflective of the protein milieu of the host cell.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Unexpected effects of systemic steroids on the CRSwNP proteome: is protein upregulation more important than inhibition?

Workman

Miyake

Nocera

et al. 2020

Self Cite

Background Oral steroids, traditionally thought of as immunosuppressive agents that are broad in their immunomodulatory effects, are a mainstay of treatment to reduce disease burden in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). The purpose of this study was to determine how differentially expressed proteins in CRSwNP are affected by oral steroid therapy. Methods Matched exosomal proteomic arrays were quantified using aptamer‐based methods in systemic steroid‐naive CRSwNP patients before and after a standardized oral prednisone course (n = 12). Previously identified differentially expressed proteins in CRSwNP patients were compared to determine the effect of steroids on expression. Fisher's exact test and t test were applied to normalized protein expression profiles to determine significance. Results Of 18 proteins previously identified to be highly underexpressed in CRSwNP, 16 (89%) had an average increase after systemic steroid treatment (p < 0.05). Lactoperoxidase, initially present at 9‐fold lower concentrations in CRSwNP subjects, increased by 209% after steroid treatment. A similar trend was observed with other proteins of interest, including platelet factor 4 and C‐C motif ligand 28. The converse of this steroid effect was not true; of the 53 proteins that are highly overexpressed in CRSwNP, only 22 (42%) decreased in quantity with steroid use. Conclusion Proteomic analysis of differentially expressed proteins in CRSwNP demonstrates that systemic steroids cause almost uniform upregulation of transcriptionally decreased proteins, whereas the effects of steroids on transcriptionally increased proteins are more heterogeneous. Thus, proteomic analysis may be an effective tool to understand specific therapeutic benefits of steroid use in polyp disease and to create more targeted treatments.