↓ Skip to main content

The leukocyte-stiffening property of plasma in early acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) revealed by a microfluidic single-cell study: the role of cytokines and protection with antibodies

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
The leukocyte-stiffening property of plasma in early acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) revealed by a microfluidic single-cell study: the role of cytokines and protection with antibodies
Published in
Critical Care, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-1157-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pascal Preira, Jean-Marie Forel, Philippe Robert, Paulin Nègre, Martine Biarnes-Pelicot, Francois Xeridat, Pierre Bongrand, Laurent Papazian, Olivier Theodoly

Abstract

Leukocyte-mediated pulmonary inflammation is a key pathophysiological mechanism involved in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Massive sequestration of leukocytes in the pulmonary microvasculature is a major triggering event of the syndrome. We therefore investigated the potential role of leukocyte stiffness and adhesiveness in the sequestration of leukocytes in microvessels.  This study was based on in vitro microfluidic assays using patient sera. Cell stiffness was assessed by measuring the entry time (ET) of a single cell into a microchannel with a 6 × 9-μm cross-section under a constant pressure drop (ΔP = 160 Pa). Primary neutrophils and monocytes, as well as the monocytic THP-1 cell line, were used. Cellular adhesiveness to human umbilical vein endothelial cells was examined using the laminar flow chamber method. We compared the properties of cells incubated with the sera of healthy volunteers (n = 5), patients presenting with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE; n = 6), and patients with ARDS (n = 22), of whom 13 were classified as having moderate to severe disease and the remaining 9 as having mild disease.  Rapid and strong stiffening of primary neutrophils and monocytes was induced within 30 minutes (mean ET >50 seconds) by sera from the ARDS group compared with both the healthy subjects and the ACPE groups (mean ET <1 second) (p < 0.05). Systematic measurements with the THP-1 cell line allowed for the establishment of a strong correlation between stiffening and the severity of respiratory status (mean ET 0.82 ± 0.08 seconds for healthy subjects, 1.6 ± 1.0 seconds for ACPE groups, 10.5 ± 6.1 seconds for mild ARDS, and 20.0 ± 8.1 seconds for moderate to severe ARDS; p < 0.05). Stiffening correlated with the cytokines interleukin IL-1β, IL-8, tumor necrosis factor TNF-α, and IL-10 but not with interferon-γ, transforming growth factor-β, IL-6, or IL-17. Strong stiffening was induced by IL-1β, IL-8, and TNF-α but not by IL-10, and incubations with sera and blocking antibodies against IL-1β, IL-8, or TNF-α significantly diminished the stiffening effect of serum. In contrast, the measurements of integrin expression (CD11b, CD11a, CD18, CD49d) and leukocyte-endothelium adhesion showed a weak and slow response after incubation with the sera of patients with ARDS (several hours), suggesting a lesser role of leukocyte adhesiveness compared with leukocyte stiffness in early ARDS.  The leukocyte stiffening induced by cytokines in the sera of patients might play a role in the sequestration of leukocytes in the lung capillary beds during early ARDS. The inhibition of leukocyte stiffening with blocking antibodies might inspire future therapeutic strategies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Other 5 12%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 11 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Engineering 3 7%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 13 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 19 January 2016.
All research outputs
#4,158,845
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,972
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,149
of 401,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#265
of 499 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 401,522 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 499 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.