↓ Skip to main content

Budesonide and fluticasone propionate differentially affect the airway epithelial barrier

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Budesonide and fluticasone propionate differentially affect the airway epithelial barrier
Published in
Respiratory Research, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12931-015-0318-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

I. H. Heijink, M. R. Jonker, M. de Vries, A. J. M. van Oosterhout, E. Telenga, N. H. T. ten Hacken, D. S. Postma, M. van den Berge

Abstract

COPD patients have a higher risk of pneumonia when treated with fluticasone propionate (FP) than with placebo, and a lower risk with budesonide (BUD). We hypothesized that BUD and FP differentially affect the mucosal barrier in response to viral infection and/or cigarette smoke. We assessed protective effects of equivalent concentrations of BUD and FP on cytokine production and barrier function (electrical resistance) in human bronchial epithelial 16HBE cells and primary bronchial epithelial cells (PBECs) upon exposure to viral mimetic poly-(I:C) and/or cigarette smoke extract (CSE) or epidermal growth factor (EGF). BUD and FP were equally effective in suppressing poly-(I:C)- and/or CSE-induced IL-8 secretion in 16HBE and PBECs. Poly-(I:C) substantially decreased electrical resistance in 16HBE cells and both BUD and FP fully counteracted this effect. However, FP hardly affected 16HBE barrier dysfunction induced by CSE with/without poly-(I:C), whereas BUD (16 nM) provided full protection, an effect likely mediated by affecting EGFR-downstream target GSK-3β. Similarly, BUD, but not FP, significantly improved CSE-induced barrier dysfunction in PBECs. Finally, BUD, but not FP, exerted a modest but significant protective effect against Streptococcus Pneumoniae-induced barrier dysfunction, and BUD, but not FP, prevented cellular adhesion and/or internalization of these bacteria induced by poly-(I:C) in 16HBE. Collectively, both BUD and FP efficiently control epithelial pro-inflammatory responses and barrier function upon mimicry of viral infection. Of potential clinical relevance, BUD more effectively counteracted CSE-induced barrier dysfunction, reinforcing the epithelial barrier and potentially limiting access of pathogens upon smoking in vivo.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 24%
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 8 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 January 2016.
All research outputs
#8,186,806
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#1,084
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,359
of 400,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#11
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 400,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.