PubMed · 15534450
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Richard L Gamelli. Editorial.. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bcr.0000144431.16219.6a
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Burn injuries trigger complex immune responses and gene expression changes, impacting wound healing and systemic inflammation. Understanding these changes is crucial for identifying biomarkers and therapeutic targets. METHODS: We analyzed two gene expression omnibus datasets (wound tissue [GSE8056] and blood [GSE37069]) to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in burn injury samples versus controls. Immune cell proportions were assessed using CIBERSORT. Functional enrichment analyses (Gene Ontology and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes) and protein-protein interaction networks were constructed to identify key genes and pathways. RESULTS: We identified 1170 upregulated and 1227 downregulated DEGs. Gene Ontology analysis revealed enrichment in neutrophil activation, inflammatory response, and extracellular matrix organization. Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes analysis highlighted cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction, TNF, and IL-17 signaling pathways. Immune infiltration analysis showed significant changes in neutrophils, macrophages (M1/M2), and T-cell subsets. Protein-protein interaction network analysis identified five hub genes: JUN, STAT1, Bcl2, MMP9, and TLR2. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive bioinformatic analysis of gene expression and immune responses in burn injuries. The identified DEGs, hub genes, and pathways offer insights into the immune response mechanisms and suggest potential targets for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in burn injury management.
When patients with an implanted contraceptive device undergo MRI, it must be ensured that the examination involves no risk to the patient (MR safety) and that the diagnosis is not affected by artifacts or the function of the device compromised (MR compatibility). Two basic types of intrauterine devices can be distinguished: the metal-containing/metal-free intrauterine device (IUD) and the hormone-containing implant, the fully metal-free intrauterine system (IUS), as well as the ESSURE insert made of stainless steel, which has been approved for use in Europe since February 2001. The metal-containing and metal-free IUDs and ESSURE are MRI compatible up to a magnetic field strength of 1.5 T. They do not interact in any relevant way with the external magnetic or high-frequency field and the temperature increase is within the physiologic range. The implants merely produce a local signal void with a shape that depends on their orientation relative to the magnetic field lines. At 3 T, only the metal-free IUD and the IUS are MRI safe in terms of the material used. In contrast, metal-containing IUDs and the ESSURE have not yet been fully evaluated in the 3 T field, which is why they represent a contraindication to MRI. No data are available on the MRI compatibility at 3 T for any of these devices.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.