Profiling type I and II interferon responses reveals distinct subgroups of pediatric patients with autoinflammatory disorders
Rattachement africain : fr, nl. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Elevation of type I interferon (IFN-I) is characteristic of a group of diseases known as type I interferonopathies. Several technologies are available to monitor IFN-I, but there is no consensus on their routine use in medical laboratories. Objective: We aimed to compare the performance of two technologies for this purpose: NanoString, which monitors messenger RNA expression of interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs), and Simoa, which quantifies IFN-α2 protein in an ultrasensitive way. We also designed a NanoString assay to monitor type II ISGs and tested its value to discriminate clinical conditions. Methods: A total of 196 samples from patients with diseases associated or not with IFN-I pathway activation were analyzed by NanoString and Simoa. Results: as the ISGs most closely related to IFN-α2 concentration. Nineteen samples had a positive IFN-I score but undetectable IFN-α2. These samples were also positive according to IFN-II score, pointing to IFN-II as the primary ISG inducer in corresponding patients. By measuring IFN-I and IFN-II scores in a subset of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, we identified two subgroups of patients in whom IFN-I and IFN-II were dominant. Conclusion: and our results highlight the value of monitoring both IFN-I and IFN-II in interferon-related diseases.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Profiling type I and II interferon responses reveals distinct subgroups of pediatric patients with autoinflammatory disorders
- Date Crossref
- 01/05/2025
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.