Reduced hydrophobicity of the colonic mucosal surface in ulcerative colitis as a hint at a physicochemical barrier defect

Purpose There is increasing evidence that a defect of the gastrointestinal mucosal barrier is important for the development of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). The hydrophobicity of the colonic mucosal surface is a measure of its resistance to luminal antigens, e.g. of bacterial origin. Therefore,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of colorectal disease 2011-08, Vol.26 (8), p.989-998
Hauptverfasser: Braun, Annika, Schönfeld, Ulrike, Welsch, Thilo, Kadmon, Martina, Funke, Benjamin, Gotthardt, Daniel, Zahn, Alexandra, Autschbach, Frank, Kienle, Peter, Zharnikov, Michael, Grunze, Michael, Stremmel, Wolfgang, Ehehalt, Robert
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose There is increasing evidence that a defect of the gastrointestinal mucosal barrier is important for the development of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). The hydrophobicity of the colonic mucosal surface is a measure of its resistance to luminal antigens, e.g. of bacterial origin. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine this parameter in patients suffering from IBD. Methods Nineteen patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), ten patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) and 20 controls were examined. All underwent colonic surgery at the University Hospital Heidelberg. Clinical disease activity was determined. From every subject, colonic tissue specimens were obtained, and hydrophobicity of the mucosal surface was determined with a goniometer by multiple plateau contact angle measurements. Histological evaluation of disease activity was performed in directly adjacent tissue specimens. Results Hydrophobicity of the colonic mucosal surface, expressed as plateau contact angles, was significantly reduced in patients with UC (mean ± SEM, 47.8° ± 3.4°) compared to those with CD (72.0° ± 5.2°) and controls (72.5° ± 5.6°; over-all P  = 0.0004; UC versus controls, P  
ISSN:0179-1958
1432-1262
DOI:10.1007/s00384-011-1190-z