Jiali Zhu

INTRODUCTION: Studies on the role of programmed death-1(PD-1) and its main ligand (PD-L1) during experimental models of sepsis have shown that the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway plays a pathologic role in altering microbial clearance, the innate inflammatory response and accelerated apoptosis in sepsis. However, the expression of PD-1 and PD-L1 and their role during the development of immune suppression in septic patients have not been elucidated. The present study was designed to determine whether the expression of PD-1 and PD-L1 is upregulated in septic shock patients and to explore the role of this pathway in sepsis-induced immunosuppression. METHODS: Nineteen septic shock patients and 22 sex-matched and age-matched healthy controls were prospectively enrolled. Apoptosis in lymphocyte subpopulations and PD-1/PD-L1 expression on peripheral T cells, B cells and monocytes were measured using flow cytometry. Apoptosis of T cells induced by TNFα or T-cell receptor ligation in vitro and effects of anti-PD-L1 antibody administration were measured by flow cytometry. CD14+ monocytes of septic shock patients were purified and incubated with either lipopolysaccharide, anti-PD-L1 antibody, isotype antibody, or a combination of lipopolysaccharide and anti-PD-L1 antibody or isotype antibody. Supernatants were harvested to examine production of cytokines by ELISA. RESULTS: Compared with healthy controls, septic shock induced a marked increase in apoptosis as detected by the annexin-V binding and active caspase-3 on CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells and CD19+ B cells. Expression of PD-1 on T cells and of PD-L1 on monocytes was dramatically upregulated in septic shock patients. PD-1/PD-L1 pathway blockade in vitro with anti-PD-L1 antibody decreased apoptosis of T cells induced by TNFα or T-cell receptor ligation. Meanwhile, this blockade potentiated the lipopolysaccharide-induced TNFα and IL-6 production and decreased IL-10 production by monocytes in vitro. CONCLUSIONS: The expression of PD-1 on T cells and PD-L1 on monocytes was upregulated in septic shock patients. The PD-1/PD-L1 pathway might play an essential role in sepsis-induced immunosuppression.

A novel FRET-based sensing platform employing fluorescent carbon dots and MnO2 nanosheets as energy donor-acceptor pairs is designed and fabricated for the first time, which demonstrates a promising application for the detection of glutathione in human whole blood samples with high sensitivity.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the effects of G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy in non-neutropenic patients with sepsis. METHODS: A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted using specific search terms. A manual review of references was also performed. Eligible studies were randomized control trials (RCTs) that compared granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) or granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) therapy with placebo for the treatment of sepsis in adults. Main outcome measures were all-cause mortality at 14 days and 28 days after initiation of G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy, in-hospital mortality, reversal rate from infection, and adverse events. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs with 2,380 patients were identified. In regard to 14-day mortality, a total of 9 death events occurred among 71 patients (12.7%) in the treatment group compared with 13 events among 67 patients (19.4%) in the placebo groups. Meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference in 28-day mortality when G-CSF or GM-CSF were compared with placebo (relative risks (RR) = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79 to 1.11, P = 0.44; P for heterogeneity = 0.31, I2 = 15%). Compared with placebo, G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy did not significantly reduce in-hospital mortality (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.36, P = 0.86; P for heterogeneity = 0.80, I2 = 0%). However, G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy significantly increased the reversal rate from infection (RR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.62, P = 0.002; P for heterogeneity = 0.47, I2 = 0%). No significant difference was observed in adverse events between groups (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.23, P = 0.62; P for heterogeneity = 0.03, I2 = 58%). Sensitivity analysis by excluding one trial did not significantly change the results of adverse events (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.32, P = 0.44; P for heterogeneity = 0.17, I2 = 36%). CONCLUSIONS: There is no current evidence supporting the routine use of G-CSF or GM-CSF in patients with sepsis. Large prospective multicenter clinical trials investigating monocytic HLA-DR (mHLA-DR)-guided G-CSF or GM-CSF therapy in patients with sepsis-associated immunosuppression are warranted.