Evidence Hub

Meta-analysis of blood genome-wide expression profiling studies in pulmonary arterial hypertension

Elinoff JM, Mazer AJ, Cai R, Lu M, Graninger G, Harper B, Ferreyra GA, Sun J et al.

American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology, 2020

156 participants · 43 citations

Abstract

Inflammatory cell infiltrates are a prominent feature of aberrant vascular remodeling in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), suggesting that immune effector cells contribute to disease progression. Genome-wide blood expression profiling studies have attempted to better define this inflammatory component of PAH pathobiology but have been hampered by small sample sizes, methodological differences, and very little gene-level reproducibility. The current meta-analysis (seven studies; 156 PAH patients/110 healthy controls) was performed to assess the comparability of data across studies and to possibly derive a generalizable transcriptomic signature. Idiopathic (IPAH) compared with disease-associated PAH (APAH) displayed highly similar expression profiles with no differentially expressed genes, even after substantially relaxing selection stringency. In contrast, using a false discovery rate of ≤1% and I2 < 40% (low-to-moderate heterogeneity across studies) both IPAH and APAH differed markedly from healthy controls with the combined PAH cohort yielding 1,269 differentially expressed, unique gene transcripts. Bioinformatic analyses, including gene-set enrichment, which uses all available data independent of gene selection thresholds, identified interferon, mammalian target of rapamycin/p70S6K, stress kinase, and Toll-like receptor signaling as enriched mechanisms within the PAH gene signature. Enriched biological functions and diseases included tumorigenesis, autoimmunity,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 156 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free