Skip to main content
Download PDF

Identification of early biomarkers of transcriptomics in alveolar macrophage for the prognosis of intubated ARDS patients

BMC Pulmonary Medicine volume 22, Article number: 334 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Currently, the rate of morbidity and mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains high. One of the potential reasons for the poor and ineffective therapies is the lack of early and credible indicator of risk prediction that would help specific treatment of severely affected ARDS patients. Nevertheless, assessment of the clinical outcomes with transcriptomics of ARDS by alveolar macrophage has not been performed.

Methods

The expression data GSE116560 was obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus databases (GEO) in NCBI. This dataset consists of 68 BAL samples from 35 subjects that were collected within 48 h of ARDS. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) of different outcomes were analyzed using R software. The top 10 DEGs that were up- or down-regulated were analyzed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis within two categories according to cut-off and the value of prediction of the clinical outcomes via DEGs was verified. GO enrichment, KEGG pathway analysis, and protein–protein interaction were also used for functional annotation of key genes.

Results

24,526 genes were obtained, including 235 up-regulated and 292 down-regulated DEGs. The gene ADORA3 was chosen as the most obvious value to predict the outcome according to the ROC and survival analysis. For functional annotation, ADORA3 was significantly augmented in sphingolipid signaling pathway, cGMP-PKG signaling pathway, and neuroactive ligand-receptor interaction. Four genes (ADORA3, GNB1, NTS, and RHO), with 4 nodes and 6 edges, had the highest score in these clusters in the protein–protein interaction network.

Conclusions

Our results show that the prognostic prediction of early biomarkers of transcriptomics as identified in alveolar macrophage in ARDS can be extended for mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. In the long term, generalizing the concept of biomarkers of transcriptomics in alveolar macrophage could add to improving precision-based strategies in the ICU patients and may also lead to identifying improved strategy for critically ill patients.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), accompanied by increased pulmonary vascular permeability, and loss of aerated lung tissue, is an acute lung injury [1]. A series of interventions have been proposed for ARDS, such as lower tidal volumes [2], higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) [3], prone positioning [4], and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [5]. It was found by a recent international, multicenter observational cohort study that morbidity and mortality of ARDS were still high [6]. The prevalence period of ARDS among ICUs in 50 countries was 10.4% of ICU admissions [6]. Overall, up to 40% of patients with ARDS died in the hospital [6].

One of the potential reasons for the lack of effective therapies is the absence of early, credible indicator for risk prediction, which would help in the precise treatment of acute ARDS [7, 8]. It was shown that 1/3 of the genes in blood leukocytes were differentially expressed between sub-phenotypes of ARDS, supporting the biological heterogeneity of patients [9]. These biological sub-phenotypes are suggested to provide prediction for a precision-based therapeutic strategy [10].

Recent studies have suggested that transcriptomic analyses using whole-blood leukocyte RNA might not accurately reflect all the lung processes of ARDS [11]. Other findings suggest that alveolar macrophages (AMs) may contribute towards the inflammation and injury in ARDS [12]. Nevertheless, assessment of the clinical outcomes with ARDS by AM has not been performed [12].

In this study, we examined the transcriptome of AMs isolated from patients on the first day after the onset of ARDS. Our study attempted to performed the assessment of the clinical outcomes with transcriptomics of ARDS by alveolar macrophage (AM).

Methods

Study population and design

The data was obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus databases (GEO) in NCBI, a public functional genomics data repository. The expression data (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/; GSE116560) was based on the Illumina GPL6883 platform (Illumina Human Ref-8 v3.0 expression BeadChip), which was submitted by Charib SA et al. This data performed unbiased genome-wide transcriptional profiling of AMs purified from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid collected from patients with ARDS. This dataset [12] consists of 68 samples from 35 subjects that occurred within 48 h of ARDS, whose BALF (BAL fluid) were taken at Day 1, Day 4 and Day 8. The average age was 45, comprising 22 men and 13 women. The factors of the ARDS were trauma (19), sepsis (17), pneumonia (9), and other (4). Participants who extubated were not selected for bronchoscopy on Day 4 or Day 8. Twenty patients were successfully extubated within 28 days. Fifteen patients were unsuccessfully extubated at 28 days, including five patients who died. At present, 28 days have been observed as an important time point for prognosis in many studies on ARDS [13,14,15]. The patients who were released from mechanical ventilation within 28 days were defined as the "good" group, those who died or were still dependent on mechanical ventilation at Day 28 were defined as the "poor" group. The data was prepared, processed and analyzed by the software R (version 3.6.3). The flowchart of this study is shown in Fig. 1. The procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Responsible Committee on Human Experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study flowchart

Full size image

Identification of differentially expressed genes

The data was normalized and corrected by the package limma of R software [16]. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) of different outcomes were screened with criteria |log2fold change (FC)|> 0 and p value < 0.05 for statistically significant difference. Consequently, the DEGs were divided into two groups namely, up-regulated DEGs and down-regulated DEGs.

ROC analysis of top 10 genes DEGs

The top 10 genes with up- and down-regulated DEGs were analyzed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Areas under the curve (AUC) and cut-off were determined to evaluate the predicted value and observation point of these top 10 genes using the pROC package of R software [17]. The best observation points of cut-off were obtained according to the Yoden Index.

Survival analysis of top 10 DEGs

According to the best observation point obtained in ROC, the genes in DEGs were divided into two categories based on expression: (1) greater than the observation point and (2) less than the observation point. Top 10 up-regulated and down-regulated genes were then analyzed with the package of survival as part of R software. Key genes related to prognosis were subsequently screened out based on the results of cox regression of survival analysis.

Functional annotation of key genes

Key genes were performed by Gene Ontology (GO) [18, 19] enrichment and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) [20] pathway analysis to investigate the functional annotation. Proteins encoded by genes were associated with cell functions. The information of protein–protein interaction (PPI) was performed with the help of the Search Tool for the Retrieval of Interacting Genes/Proteins (STRING) database [21]. The database of STRING was used to analyze the interaction between DEGs and key selected genes. The software of Cytoscape and its plug-in Multicontrast Delayed Enhancement (MCODE) were used to visualize and select key genes belonging to the PPI network [22, 23]. The cut-off criteria was used with degree = 2, node score = 0.2, k-core = 2, and maximum depth = 100.

Results

Identification of DEGs

24,526 genes were screened from the GSE116560 dataset, including 235 up-regulated and 292 down-regulated DEGs. It was shown that some of the transcriptional programs of AM were different between the patients released from mechanical ventilation within 28 days and those who died or were still dependent on mechanical ventilation at Day 28.The volcano map of all DEGs is shown in Fig. 2A. The heat map of top 100 DEGs shows top 20 up-regulated genes, and top 20 down-regulated genes, Fig. 2B–D.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Identification of DEGs

Full size image

Identification of the top 10 DEGs with outcome

The top 10 up- and down-regulated DEGs were identified based on ROC analysis. The group of genes identified showed the best outcome with the setting AUC > 0.7, except for ICA1 (Fig. 3). The AUC for the gene FRAT1 was 0.773, with a significant change of gene expression as up-regulated DEGs (Fig. 3A). The AUC for the gene UNC45A was 0.866, with the most significant change of gene expression as down-regulated DEGs (Fig. 3B). The best observed concentration of cut-off to predict was chosen after ROC analysis.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Identification of the top 10 DEGs with outcome

Full size image

Identification the key genes via survival analysis

Kaplan–Meier survival analysis using two categories based on the cut-off was performed and the value of prediction of the clinical outcomes via DEGs was verified (Table 1). The gene ADORA3 showed a significant change with this outcome (Fig. 4A and Additional file 1). This was chosen as the most appropriate value to predict the outcome according to the survival analysis (Fig. 4B), p = 0.059 (< 0.10).

Table 1 Survival analysis of the top 10 up-regulated and down-regulated genes
Full size table
Fig. 4
figure 4

Identification the key genes via survival analysis

Full size image

Functional annotation of gene ADORA3

The key gene ADORA3 was further evaluated by GO categories and KEGG pathways. Results of GO [24, 25] analysis found ADORA3 significantly enriched in pathways, such as adenosine P1 receptors, nucleotide-like (purinergic) receptors, G alpha (i) signaling events, GPCR ligand binding, GPCR downstream signaling, signaling by GPCR, and signal transduction (Fig. 5A). The KEGG pathway results revealed that ADORA3 was significantly augmented in sphingolipid signaling pathway, cGMP-PKG signaling pathway, and neuroactive ligand-receptor interaction (Fig. 5B, C).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Functional annotation of gene ADORA3

Full size image

Protein–protein interaction network

The PPI network of 237 up-regulated DEGs from ARDS patients identified using STRING analysis contained 123 nodes and 146 edges. A total of 6 clusters were generated in MCODE. 4 genes were selected as the most important clusters by the scores evaluated in MCODE. MCODE 1, consisting of four genes (ADORA3, GNB1, NTS, and RHO), with 4 nodes and 6 edges, had the highest score in these clusters (Fig. 5D).

It was shown that transcriptional programs of AM were different between the patients released from mechanical ventilation within 28 days and those who died or were still dependent on mechanical ventilation at Day 28. Among them, ADORA3 might be a key gene.

Discussion

This study investigated the prognostic and predictive enrichment of ARDS sub-phenotypes of intubated patients. This is the first study to find the different prognosis between patients with significantly high or low expression of gene ADORA3 in ARDS. In the predictive model of our survival analysis, it forecasted that different expression levels of ARDOA3 at above or below the cut-off, the incidence of extubating were different at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 days. Our study revealed that ADORA3 and its related pathways might be associated with 28-day outcomes. As we know, ADORA3 might play an important part in the resolution and initiation of ARDS.

ADROA3 may affect the physiological functions of cells and organs by participating in signal transduction in several signal pathways. Purinergic receptors family includes the GPCR P2Y purinergic receptors and adenosine P1 receptors [26]. Purinergic receptors are involved in cellular functions such as vascular reactivity, apoptosis and cytokine secretion [27]. P1 receptors are purinergic receptors such as G-protein coupled receptors with their endogenous ligand adenosine. There are four adenosine receptors in humans, with distinct functions. They might play important roles in the heart, brain, and might be involved in inflammation and immune responses [28]. The classical mechanism is inhibition of the cAMP dependent pathway via inhibition of adenylate cyclase [29]. Decrease in production of cAMP from ATP leads to decreased activity of cAMP-dependent protein kinases [29].

Putten et al. found that ADORA3 and its pathway induced proinflammatory cytokines [30]. Another research concluded the protective effect of preventing immune mediated damage and excessive immune response via ADORA3 activation [31]. Lung fibroblasts are promoted into myofibroblasts by adenosine receptors. This suggests a potential involvement of ADORA3 in the processes of fibrotic lung disease [32]. Until now, studies on ADORA3 and ARDS pathogenesis is insufficient, and the mechanisms remain to be investigated further.

Some researchers have found the role of ADORA3 in heart. The signaling of ADORA3 protects cardiomyocytes against the damage of ischemia, as well as protects it from energy depletion and contractile dysfunction [33,34,35,36,37]. Moreover, activation of ADORA3 might induce myocardial cells apoptosis [38]. Del et al. found that mRNA expression of ADORA3 in left ventricle of failing minipig heart was higher than in hearts of control healthy minipig [39]. In addition, ADORA3 is overexpressed in inflammation and up-regulated in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of autoimmune diseases. Activation of ADORA3 resulting in downregulation of nuclear factor kappa B (NF-kB) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα) [40], leads to the inhibition of inflammatory cytokines [41].

The package of limma was used from Bioconductor to correct for multiple testing issue. Through the analysis of differential genes by ROC analysis, survival analysis, functional annotation, and PPI network. We narrowed the scope of target genes. The top10 up-regulated and top 10 down-regulated genes had been analyzed by survival analysis for all.

In the survival analysis of ADORA3, it was found that the two groups of survival analysis curves were far apart within the first 3 weeks, and gradually approached closer to each other in the last week. It might be considered that ADORA3 may be useful in the early stages of ARDS to predict mortality, but not in the later stages of the disease. Furthermore, we will stratify the disease course and expand the sample size in the further study.

This datasets we used were obtained from a public database. With this datasets, Morrel et al. [12] identified genes between groups at each time point using linear models, while temporal expression analysis was performed using the STEM. Zhao et al. [39] analyzed that GSE116560 was only one of the datasets, which was based on different platform. In our study, we narrowed the scope by screening differential genes and ROC, and finally performing survival analysis on related genes with a distinctive combination of time and outcome.

Although this study is promising and opens up a new perspective on the impact of ADORA3 and its signaling on the outcome in ARDS, the potential limitations of our research should also be contemplated. First, the dataset was obtained from a public database. All results were obtained using bioinformatics. Future studies are currently being designed for examining the exact roles of ADORA3 and its signaling in ARDS.. Second, because of the limited sample size, studies on a larger population are required to better define the role of ADORA3 in ARDS.

In conclusion, our results show that the prognostic prediction of early biomarkers of transcriptomics as identified in alveolar macrophage in ARDS can be applied to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. In the long term, generalizing the concept of biomarkers of transcriptomics in alveolar macrophage could add to improving precision-based strategies in the ICU population and lead to identifying treatable therapy for all critically ill.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analyzed during the current study are publicly available in the [Gene Expression Omnibus databased] repository/database, [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/; GSE116560].

References

  1. Force ADT, Ranieri VM, Rubenfeld GD, Thompson BT, Ferguson ND, Caldwell E, Fan E, Camporota L, Slutsky AS. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin Definition. JAMA. 2012;307(23):2526–33.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network, Brower RG, Matthay MA, Morris A, Schoenfeld D, Thompson BT, Wheeler A. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(18):1301–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Briel M, Meade M, Mercat A, Brower RG, Talmor D, Walter SD, Slutsky AS, Pullenayegum E, Zhou Q, Cook D, et al. Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2010;303(9):865–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Guerin C, Reignier J, Richard JC. Prone positioning in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(10):980–1.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Peek GJ, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R, Wilson A, Allen E, Thalanany MM, Hibbert CL, Truesdale A, Clemens F, Cooper N, et al. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9698):1351–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, Fan E, Brochard L, Esteban A, Gattinoni L, van Haren F, Larsson A, McAuley DF, et al. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA. 2016;315(8):788–800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Luo L, Shaver CM, Zhao Z, Koyama T, Calfee CS, Bastarache JA, Ware LB. Clinical predictors of hospital mortality differ between direct and indirect ARDS. Chest. 2017;151(4):755–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Villar J, Blanco J, del Campo R, Andaluz-Ojeda D, Diaz-Dominguez FJ, Muriel A, Corcoles V, Suarez-Sipmann F, Tarancon C, Gonzalez-Higueras E, et al. Assessment of PaO(2)/FiO(2) for stratification of patients with moderate and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. BMJ Open. 2015;5(3):e006812.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bos LDJ, Scicluna BP, Ong DSY, Cremer O, van der Poll T, Schultz MJ. Understanding heterogeneity in biologic phenotypes of acute respiratory distress syndrome by leukocyte expression profiles. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200(1):42–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang X, Zhou J, Wang T, George SL. On enrichment strategies for biomarker stratified clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2018;28(2):292–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Morrell ED, Radella F 2nd, Manicone AM, Mikacenic C, Stapleton RD, Gharib SA, Wurfel MM. Peripheral and alveolar cell transcriptional programs are distinct in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;197(4):528–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Morrell ED, Bhatraju PK, Mikacenic CR, Radella F 2nd, Manicone AM, Stapleton RD, Wurfel MM, Gharib SA. Alveolar macrophage transcriptional programs are associated with outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200(6):732–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Bos LDJ, Sjoding M, Sinha P, Bhavani SV, Lyons PG, Bewley AF, Botta M, Tsonas AM, Serpa Neto A, Schultz MJ, et al. Longitudinal respiratory subphenotypes in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: results from three observational cohorts. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9(12):1377–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Writing Committee and Steering Committee for the RELAx Collaborative Group, Algera AG, Pisani L, Serpa Neto A, den Boer SS, Bosch FFH, Bruin K, Klooster PM, Van der Meer NJM, et al. Effect of a lower vs higher positive end-expiratory pressure strategy on ventilator-free days in ICU patients without ARDS: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;324(24):2509–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sinha P, Calfee CS, Cherian S, Brealey D, Cutler S, King C, Killick C, Richards O, Cheema Y, Bailey C, et al. Prevalence of phenotypes of acute respiratory distress syndrome in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a prospective observational study. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(12):1209–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Ritchie ME, Phipson B, Wu D, Hu Y, Law CW, Shi W, Smyth GK. limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(7):e47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Robin X, Turck N, Hainard A, Tiberti N, Lisacek F, Sanchez JC, Muller M. pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinform. 2011;12:77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet. 2000;25(1):25–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Jassal B, Matthews L, Viteri G, Gong C, Lorente P, Fabregat A, Sidiropoulos K, Cook J, Gillespie M, Haw R, et al. The reactome pathway knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48(D1):D498–503.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kanehisa M, Goto S. KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28(1):27–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Szklarczyk D, Franceschini A, Wyder S, Forslund K, Heller D, Huerta-Cepas J, Simonovic M, Roth A, Santos A, Tsafou KP, et al. STRING v10: protein–protein interaction networks, integrated over the tree of life. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(Database issue):D447-452.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Doncheva NT, Morris JH, Gorodkin J, Jensen LJ. Cytoscape StringApp: network analysis and visualization of proteomics data. J Proteome Res. 2019;18(2):623–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bandettini WP, Kellman P, Mancini C, Booker OJ, Vasu S, Leung SW, Wilson JR, Shanbhag SM, Chen MY, Arai AE. MultiContrast Delayed Enhancement (MCODE) improves detection of subendocardial myocardial infarction by late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a clinical validation study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Fabregat A, Jupe S, Matthews L, Sidiropoulos K, Gillespie M, Garapati P, Haw R, Jassal B, Korninger F, May B, et al. The reactome pathway knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(D1):D649–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fabregat A, Korninger F, Viteri G, Sidiropoulos K, Marin-Garcia P, Ping P, Wu G, Stein L, D’Eustachio P, Hermjakob H. Reactome graph database: efficient access to complex pathway data. PLoS Comput Biol. 2018;14(1): e1005968.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Burnstock G. Purinergic signalling—an overview. Novartis Found Symp. 2006;276:26–48 (discussion 48–57, 275–281).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Abbracchio MP, Burnstock G, Verkhratsky A, Zimmermann H. Purinergic signalling in the nervous system: an overview. Trends Neurosci. 2009;32(1):19–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fredholm BB, IJzerman AP, Jacobson KA, Linden J, Muller CE. International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology. LXXXI. Nomenclature and classification of adenosine receptors—an update. Pharmacol Rev. 2011;63(1):1–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Dessauer CW, Chen-Goodspeed M, Chen J. Mechanism of Galpha i-mediated inhibition of type V adenylyl cyclase. J Biol Chem. 2002;277(32):28823–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. van der Putten C, Veth J, Sukurova L, Zuiderwijk-Sick EA, Simonetti E, Koenen H, Burm SM, van Noort JM, IJzerman AP, van Hijum S, et al. TLR-induced IL-12 and CCL2 production by myeloid cells is dependent on adenosine A3 receptor-mediated signaling. J Immunol. 2019;202(8):2421–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. D’Antongiovanni V, Fornai M, Pellegrini C, Benvenuti L, Blandizzi C, Antonioli L. The adenosine system at the crossroads of intestinal inflammation and neoplasia. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(14):5089.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Della Latta V, Cabiati M, Rocchiccioli S, Del Ry S, Morales MA. The role of the adenosinergic system in lung fibrosis. Pharmacol Res. 2013;76:182–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Liu GS, Richards SC, Olsson RA, Mullane K, Walsh RS, Downey JM. Evidence that the adenosine A3 receptor may mediate the protection afforded by preconditioning in the isolated rabbit heart. Cardiovasc Res. 1994;28(7):1057–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Maldonado C, Qiu Y, Tang XL, Cohen MV, Auchampach J, Bolli R. Role of adenosine receptors in late preconditioning against myocardial stunning in conscious rabbits. Am J Physiol. 1997;273(3 Pt 2):H1324-1332.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Thourani VH, Ronson RS, Jordan JE, Guyton RA, Vinten-Johansen J. Adenosine A3 pretreatment before cardioplegic arrest attenuates postischemic cardiac dysfunction. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67(6):1732–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tracey WR, Magee W, Masamune H, Kennedy SP, Knight DR, Buchholz RA, Hill RJ. Selective adenosine A3 receptor stimulation reduces ischemic myocardial injury in the rabbit heart. Cardiovasc Res. 1997;33(2):410–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Xu Z, Jang Y, Mueller RA, Norfleet EA. IB-MECA and cardioprotection. Cardiovasc Drug Rev. 2006;24(3–4):227–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hannon JP, Pfannkuche HJ, Fozard JR. A role for mast cells in adenosine A3 receptor-mediated hypotension in the rat. Br J Pharmacol. 1995;115(6):945–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Del Ry S, Cabiati M, Martino A, Simioniuc A, Morales MA, Picano E. Adenosine receptor mRNA expression in normal and failing minipig hearts. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2011;58(2):149–56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Fishman P, Bar-Yehuda S, Madi L, Rath-Wolfson L, Ochaion A, Cohen S, Baharav E. The PI3K-NF-kappaB signal transduction pathway is involved in mediating the anti-inflammatory effect of IB-MECA in adjuvant-induced arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2006;8(1):R33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Hasko G, Szabo C, Nemeth ZH, Kvetan V, Pastores SM, Vizi ES. Adenosine receptor agonists differentially regulate IL-10, TNF-alpha, and nitric oxide production in RAW 264.7 macrophages and in endotoxemic mice. J Immunol. 1996;157(10):4634–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the participants for providing the information used in this study and for kindly making the arrangements for data collection.

Funding

This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province (Grant No. 2020J011068), the Innovation Project of Fujian Provincial Health Commission (2021CXA003).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Songchang Shi, Shuo Wei, and Xiaobin Pan have contributed equally to this work

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Shengli Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Provincial Hospital South Branch, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, People’s Republic of China

    Songchang Shi, Xiaobin Pan, Lihui Zhang, Shujuan Zhang & Xincai Wang

  2. Department of Infectious Disease, Shengli Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, People’s Republic of China

    Shuo Wei

  3. Department of Endocrinology, Shengli Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, People’s Republic of China

    Wei Lin

  4. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Shengli Clinical Medical College of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fuzhou, 350001, People’s Republic of China

    Songjing Shi

Authors
  1. Songchang Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shuo Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaobin Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lihui Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shujuan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xincai Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Songjing Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Wei Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SS performed the formal analysis, methodology, and writing-original draft; SW, XP, LZ, SZ, and XW performed the data curation, and resources; WL and SS performed the conceptualization, formal analysis, writing-original draft, and project administration; WL is the guarantor of this manuscript and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Songjing Shi or Wei Lin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study has been approved by the Fujian Provincial Hospital Ethics Committee. The study follows the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All study participants provided informed consent for this study.

Disclosure statement

This manuscript is an honest, accurate and transparent account of the study, case or topic being reported; that no important aspects have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. Supplementary 1

Different expression of the key genes with the outcome.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shi, S., Wei, S., Pan, X. et al. Identification of early biomarkers of transcriptomics in alveolar macrophage for the prognosis of intubated ARDS patients. BMC Pulm Med 22, 334 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-022-02130-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-022-02130-8

Keywords

BMC Pulmonary Medicine

ISSN: 1471-2466

Contact us