Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Newest Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Methods & Resources
    • Archive
    • Subjects
  • Collections
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • License, Copyright, Fee
    • FAQ
    • Why submit
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editors & Staff
    • Board Members
    • Licensing and Reuse
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Privacy Policy
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • LSA LLC
  • Alerts
  • Other Publications
    • EMBO Press
    • The EMBO Journal
    • EMBO reports
    • EMBO Molecular Medicine
    • Molecular Systems Biology
    • Rockefeller University Press
    • Journal of Cell Biology
    • Journal of Experimental Medicine
    • Journal of General Physiology
    • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
    • Genes & Development
    • Genome Research

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Life Science Alliance
  • Other Publications
    • EMBO Press
    • The EMBO Journal
    • EMBO reports
    • EMBO Molecular Medicine
    • Molecular Systems Biology
    • Rockefeller University Press
    • Journal of Cell Biology
    • Journal of Experimental Medicine
    • Journal of General Physiology
    • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
    • Genes & Development
    • Genome Research
  • My alerts
Life Science Alliance

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Newest Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Methods & Resources
    • Archive
    • Subjects
  • Collections
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • License, Copyright, Fee
    • FAQ
    • Why submit
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editors & Staff
    • Board Members
    • Licensing and Reuse
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Privacy Policy
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • LSA LLC
  • Alerts
  • Follow lsa Template on Twitter
Research Article
Transparent Process
Open Access

Urinary prostaglandin E2 as a biomarker for recurrent UTI in postmenopausal women

Tahmineh Ebrahimzadeh, Amy Kuprasertkul, Michael L Neugent, Kevin C Lutz, Jorge L Fuentes, View ORCID ProfileJashkaran Gadhvi, Fatima Khan, Cong Zhang, Belle M Sharon, Kim Orth, Qiwei Li, Philippe E Zimmern, View ORCID ProfileNicole J De Nisco  Correspondence email
Tahmineh Ebrahimzadeh
1Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amy Kuprasertkul
2Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael L Neugent
1Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kevin C Lutz
3Depatment of Mathematics, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jorge L Fuentes
2Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jashkaran Gadhvi
1Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jashkaran Gadhvi
Fatima Khan
1Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cong Zhang
3Depatment of Mathematics, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Belle M Sharon
1Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kim Orth
4Department of Molecular Biology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
5Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
6Department of Biochemistry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Qiwei Li
3Depatment of Mathematics, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philippe E Zimmern
2Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicole J De Nisco
1Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nicole J De Nisco
  • For correspondence: nicole.denisco@utdallas.edu
Published 6 May 2021. DOI: 10.26508/lsa.202000948
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • Metrics
  • Reviewer Comments
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Supplementary Materials
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1. COX-2 expression is activated in the bladder urothelium during human recurrent urinary tract infection.

    (A) Cohort 1 patient recruitment and procedure timeline. (B) Representative confocal micrographs (63×) of I1 and C1 regions of PNK006 and PNK011 with DNA (Hoechst) in blue, Mucin (WGA) in green, COX-2 in red and neutrophils (ELA-2) in magenta. Scale bar represents 10 μm. (C, D) Quantification of COX-2 expressing cells and (D) neutrophils within the urothelium of control (blue) and inflamed (red) region biopsies reported as percentage of total urothelial cells. 10 randomly sampled images were enumerated for each section. Bar graphs represent mean ± SEM. (E) Comparison of %COX-2–expressing cells and %neutrophils between control and inflamed regions. Whiskers drawn minimum to maximum, boxes represent interquartile range, and median denoted by horizontal line. P-values generated by Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-ranks test. (F) Linear regression with Spearman correlation between %neutrophils and %COX-2–positive cells.

  • Figure S1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S1. COX-2 and ELA-2 detection in the bladder urothelium of patients PNK006 and PNK011.

    (A, B) Confocal micrographs (63×) from Fig 1B with split channels for ease of interpretation (control and Inflamed Region 1) as well as an additional representative inflamed region micrograph (Inflamed Region 2) from (A) PNK006 and (B) PNK011 biopsies. Independent channels for COX-2 (red) and ELA-2 (magenta) as well as the merged channel are shown. Scale bar represents 10 μm. White dashed line delineates urothelium and suburothelium. DNA (Hoechst) in blue, Mucin (WGA) in green, COX-2 in red, and neutrophils (ELA-2) in magenta.

  • Figure S2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S2. Detection of COX-2–expressing cells and neutrophils in the bladder suburothelium.

    Cohort 1 bladder biopsy sections were analyzed for the presence of suburothelial COX-2 expression and neutrophil accumulation. (A, B, C, D, E) Representative confocal micrograph (63×) of I1 bladder biopsy sections of patients PNK003, 006, 010, 011, and 014 with suburothelial COX-2 expression and neutrophils. (F) Representative confocal micrograph (63×) of I1 bladder biopsy of PNK001 with suburothelial COX-2 expression in the absence of neutrophils. DNA (Hoechst) in blue, Mucin (WGA) in green, COX-2 in red, and neutrophils (ELA-2) in magenta. White dashed line delineates urothelium and suburothelium. Scale bar represents 10 μm.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2. Urinary PGE2 as a marker for COX-2–mediated bladder inflammation.

    (A) Cohort 2 patient recruitment and procedure timeline. (B) Representative confocal micrographs for control and I1 region from patients PNK025 and PNK027 compared to commercially available human normal bladder section (control, US Biomax) with DNA in blue, Mucin in green, COX-2 in red and neutrophils in magenta. Scale bar represents 10 μm. (C, D) Quantification of COX-2 expressing cells and (D) neutrophils within the urothelium reported as percentage of total urothelial cells. 10 randomly sampled images taken with a 63× objective were enumerated for scoring. C denotes control. (E) Bar graphs represent mean ± SEM (E) Urinary PGE2 normalized to Cr. (F) Raw urinary PGE2 concentration. Bar graphs represent mean ± SD. (G) Linear regression with Spearman’s correlation between raw urinary PGE2 concentration and %COX-2–positive urothelial cells. Red circle denotes positive urine culture. Purple circle denotes PNK025.

  • Figure S3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S3. COX-2 and ELA-2 detection in the bladder urothelium of PNK025 and PNK027.

    Confocal micrographs (63×) from Fig 2B with split channels for ease of interpretation. Independent channels for COX-2 (red) and ELA-2 (magenta) as well as the merged channel are shown for PNK025 and PNK027 versus Control (US Biomax) biopsy sections. Scale bar represents 10 μm. White dashed line delineates urothelium and suburothelium. DNA (Hoechst) in blue, Mucin (WGA) in green, COX-2 in red, and neutrophils (ELA-2) in magenta.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3. FISH detects bladder-resident bacterial communities.

    (A) Representative confocal micrograph of FISH performed on PNK025 and PNK027 I1 biopsies using universal 16S rRNA and scramble probes with bacteria in magenta and DNA in blue. White arrowheads point to bacteria. (B) Violin plot of urothelial and suburothelial bacterial community enumeration in each biopsy. 10 randomly sampled images were quantified per biopsy. Individual data points are open circles and black boxes depict the median.

  • Figure S4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S4. 16S rRNA FISH detection of suburothelial bladder-resident bacteria.

    (A, B) Representative confocal micrographs (63×) of FISH performed on (A) PNK025 and (B) PNK027 bladder biopsy sections using scramble (left panels) and universal 16S rRNA probes (center and right panels). Two regions per biopsy are shown for patients PNK025 and PNK027. Right-most column of panels are zoomed-in views of the boxed regions in the center panel. Bacteria are in magenta (Alexa-647) and DNA (Hoechst) in blue. White arrowheads point to bacteria. White dashed line delineates urothelium and suburothelium. Scale bar represents 10 μm.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4. Urinary PGE2 is a biomarker for active recurrent urinary tract infection (rUTI) and is the best model to predict rUTI relapse in postmenopausal women.

    (A) Diagram depicting Cohort 3 design. Patients were stratified intro three cohorts: Never (no clinical history of urinary tract infection [UTI]), Remission (history of rUTI, no current UTI), and Relapse (history of rUTI, current UTI). (B, C) Urinary PGE2 normalized to creatinine and (C) raw urinary PGE2 concentration as measured by ELISA. P-values generated by Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn’s multiple comparison test. Whiskers drawn to minimum and maximum, boxes represent interquartile range, and median is denoted by a horizontal line. (D) Receiver operating characteristic curves of single-variable logistic regression models illustrate the ability of each model to predict rUTI status. Area under the curve was calculated using leave-one-out cross validation. (E) Receiver operating characteristic curves comparing multivariable logistic regression models to a PGE2-only model for predicting rUTI. Area under the curve was calculated using leave-one-out cross validation.

  • Figure S5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S5. Significant Clinical Variables for Group and recurrent urinary tract infection comparisons in Cohort 3.

    (A) Plots of statistically significant variables comparing Never, Remission, and Relapse groups within Cohort 3. (B) Plots of statistically significant variables comparing active recurrent urinary tract infection group versus Control (no active urinary tract infection). Significant numerical variables are displayed in boxplots and significant categorical variables in stacked bar plots.

  • Figure S6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S6. Predicted probabilities of recurrent urinary tract infection for Cohort 3 patients.

    Prediction of recurrent urinary tract infection (red) and Control (blue) for each of the 92 samples of the logistic regression model containing PGE2 as the only explanatory variable.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5. High urinary PGE2 is a prognostic marker for development of recurrent urinary tract infection relapse in a 12-mo follow-up study.

    (A) Analysis of the urinary PGE2 concentrations between nondiabetic (filled) and diabetic (empty) No active urinary tract infection (blue circle) versus Active urinary tract infection (red triangle) patients. Mann–Whitney U test used to calculate P-values. (B) Kaplan–Meier analysis of time-to-relapse data for patients in the Relapse group dichotomized about the median PGE2 concentration. Red line depicts above median and blue line below median patients. Data were analyzed by log-rank (Mantel–Cox) test. HR, hazard ratio (below median/above median) and CI = 95% confidence interval.

  • Figure S7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure S7. Correlation analysis between clinical variables and urinary PGE2 concentration.

    Clinical variables were assessed to determine extent of correlation with urinary PGE2 concentration. (A) Urinary PGE2 in three groups of patients from Cohort 2 and Cohort 3 using different types of NSAIDs: No NSAID, nonselective, and selective. P-values calculated by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s multiple comparison test. (B) Pie chart representing distribution of NSAIDs used by patients in Cohorts 2 and 3. (C) Association between PGE2 and estrogen hormone therapy in Cohort 3. Modality of estrogen hormone therapy was either vaginal, transdermal patch, or oral. Whiskers drawn to minimum and maximum, boxes represent interquartile range, and median is denoted by a horizontal line. Data analyzed by Mann–Whitney U test. (D, E, F) Spearman’s correlation between raw urinary PGE2 and pH, BMI, and age in Cohort 3. The line depicts the linear regression. The color and shape of the data points indicate original group assignment: Never (Blue circle), Remission (Green square), Relapse (Red triangle), and Cohort 2 (Purple diamond).

Tables

  • Figures
  • Supplementary Materials
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Cohort 2 patient characteristics.

    PatientsAge (yr)BMI (kg/m2)DiabetesPrior CFTUrine culture historyUrine culture before CFT
    PNK0165832.2IDDMNoPseudomonas aeruginosa and Proteus mirabilisEnterococcus faecalis (105)
    PNK0176525.3NoNoP. aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and E. faecalisNo growth
    PNK0186224.0NoNoKlebsiella pneumoniae, E. coli, and E. faecalisNo growth
    PNK0198022.5NoNoE. faecalis and K. pneumoniaeNo growth
    PNK0205131.9NoNoE. coliNo growth
    PNK0228827.5NoNoE. coliNo growth
    PNK0238220.7NoNoK. pneumoniaeK. pneumoniae (105)
    PNK0245830.9AODMYesK. pneumoniaeNo growth
    PNK0256641.2NoNoE. coliNo growth
    PNK0266535.0AODMNoE. coliNo growth
    PNK0277722.0NoYesE. coli and E. faecalisEnterococcus faecium (105), Aerococcus urinae (55–99,000)
    • Relevant patient data recorded for the 11 study participants. BMI, body mass index. Diabetes: no, nondiabetic; IDDM, diabetes mellitus type 1; AODM, adult-onset diabetes mellitus type 2; CFT, cystoscopy with fulguration of trigonitis. Urine cultures performed in clinical laboratories with a 104 CFU/ml detection limit.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Cohort 3 summary statistics.

    NeverRemissionRelapse
    Number of women (n)263531
    Hx of fulguration02019
    Median Age (IQR) (yr)69.5 (63–77.75)70 (63–81)74 (70–80)
    Median BMI (IQR) (kg/m2)26.05 (21.4–27.5)27.8 (22–31)27.9 (25.4–32.1)
    Median urine pH (IQR)6 (5–7)5.82 (5–6.74)5.35 (5–6)
    AODM (%)1 (3%)7 (20%)6 (19.35%)
    EHT (%)14 (53%)22 (62%)9 (29%)
    NSAIDSelective (%)2 (7.69%)5 (14.28%)1 (3.22%)
    Nonselective (%)6 (23.07%)7 (20%)2 (6.45%)
    • Median and interquartile range (IQR) for age; (BMI) body mass index, and urinary pH. AODM, adult-onset diabetes mellitus; EHT, estrogen hormone therapy; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Summary of cohort-associated clinical metadata analysis to assess the model prediction accuracy.

    Model variablesAUCF scoreCutoff probability
    PGE20.8430.7780.317
    Age0.6230.5740.289
    Estrogen0.650.5640.468
    BMI0.6270.5940.266
    Post void residual (PVR)0.560.5040.299
    pH0.6060.5380.304
    PGE2, age, BMI, estrogen, PVR, and pH0.8820.7610.308
    PGE2 and age0.8440.750.224
    PGE2, age, and estrogen0.8480.7370.268
    PGE2, and estrogen0.8550.7760.43
    Age, BMI, estrogen, PVR, and pH0.8050.6750.287
    • Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) procedure used to calculate the area under the ROC curve (AUC), F-score (predictive accuracy of the model), and the cutoff probability.

Supplementary Materials

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Table S1 Statistical analysis for the comparison of clinical variables between No Never, Remission, and Relapse groups.

  • Table S2 Statistical analysis for the comparison of clinical variables between recurrent urinary tract infection and control groups.

PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Life Science Alliance.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Urinary prostaglandin E2 as a biomarker for recurrent UTI in postmenopausal women
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Life Science Alliance
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Life Science Alliance web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Urinary PGE2 as a biomarker for recurrent UTI
Tahmineh Ebrahimzadeh, Amy Kuprasertkul, Michael L Neugent, Kevin C Lutz, Jorge L Fuentes, Jashkaran Gadhvi, Fatima Khan, Cong Zhang, Belle M Sharon, Kim Orth, Qiwei Li, Philippe E Zimmern, Nicole J De Nisco
Life Science Alliance May 2021, 4 (7) e202000948; DOI: 10.26508/lsa.202000948

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Urinary PGE2 as a biomarker for recurrent UTI
Tahmineh Ebrahimzadeh, Amy Kuprasertkul, Michael L Neugent, Kevin C Lutz, Jorge L Fuentes, Jashkaran Gadhvi, Fatima Khan, Cong Zhang, Belle M Sharon, Kim Orth, Qiwei Li, Philippe E Zimmern, Nicole J De Nisco
Life Science Alliance May 2021, 4 (7) e202000948; DOI: 10.26508/lsa.202000948
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
Issue Cover

In this Issue

Volume 4, No. 7
July 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Cover (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Masthead (PDF)
Advertisement

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Materials and Methods
    • Data Availability
    • Acknowledgements
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • Metrics
  • Reviewer Comments
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Medical Research

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Interaction hub for telomerase function
  • Toxoplasma OTU deubiquitinases
  • Iodine-induced cellular toxicity
Show more Research Article

Similar Articles

EMBO Press LogoRockefeller University Press LogoCold Spring Harbor Logo

Content

  • Home
  • Newest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Subject Collections

For Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Guidelines
  • License, copyright, Fee

Other Services

  • Alerts
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • Editors & Staff
  • Reviewer Guidelines
  • Feedback
  • Licensing and Reuse
  • Privacy Policy

ISSN: 2575-1077
© 2023 Life Science Alliance LLC

Life Science Alliance is registered as a trademark in the U.S. Patent and Trade Mark Office and in the European Union Intellectual Property Office.