Achalasia alters physiological networks depending on sex

Le résumé fourni par la source

Achalasia is a rare esophageal motility disorder for which the etiology is not fully understood. Evidence suggests that autoimmune inflammatory infiltrates, possibly triggered by a viral infection, may lead to a degeneration of neurons within the myenteric plexus. While the infection is eventually resolved, genetically susceptible individuals may still be at risk of developing achalasia. This study aimed to determine whether immunological and physiological networks differ between male and female patients with achalasia. This cross-sectional study included 189 preoperative achalasia patients and 500 healthy blood donor volunteers. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, immunological, and tissue biomarkers were collected. Male and female participants were evaluated separately to determine the role of sex. Correlation matrices were constructed using bivariate relationships to generate complex inferential networks. These matrices were filtered based on their statistical significance to identify the most relevant relationships between variables. Network topology and node centrality were calculated using tools available in the R programming language. Previous occurrences of chickenpox, measles, and mumps infections have been proposed as potential risk factors for achalasia, with a stronger association observed in females. Principal component analysis (PCA) identified IL-22, Th2, and regulatory B lymphocytes as key variables contributing to the disease. The physiological network topology has the potential to inform whether a localized injury or illness is likely to produce systemic consequences and the resulting clinical presentation. Here we show that immunological involvement in achalasia appears localized in men because of their highly modular physiological network. In contrast, in women the disease becomes systemic because of their robust network with a larger number of inter-cluster linkages.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.