Multi-Omics profiling of CYBB/ITGB2-mediated NETs-dependent lupus nephritis: Expression and clinical implications


Abstract

Objective: Neutrophil extracellular trap formation (NETosis) is a pivotal pathogenic process in lupus nephritis (LN), but the precise mechanistic role of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) in LN remains unclear. This study aims to identify potential diagnostic biomarkers for LN through bioinformatics analysis of genes associated with NETs and explore their correlations with clinical parameters, providing new insights for LN diagnosis and treatment.

Methods: 1. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were screened from the GSE32591 dataset, followed by functional enrichment (GO/KEGG) and machine learning (LASSO, RF, SVM-RFE) to prioritize hub genes. The diagnostic value of LN-related biomarkers was further assessed by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves in the validation dataset. LN samples were subjected to unsupervised clustering (WGCNA) and single-sample gene set enrichment analysis (ssGSEA). 2. Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining of ITGB2 and CYBB proteins was performed on renal tissue specimens from 18 LN patients and 6 controls, with Image-Pro Plus 6.0 quantifying the average optical density (AOD) to validate the differential expression of key genes. Correlation analysis between protein expression levels and clinical parameters was conducted using GraphPad Prism 10.

Results: Bioinformatics analysis revealed DEGs enriched in immune response, viral infection, and NF-κB pathways. Machine learning prioritized ITGB2, CYBB, and G0S2, with ITGB2/CYBB showing high diagnostic accuracy. Unsupervised clustering based on CYBB/ITGB2 expression profiles stratified LN patients into two molecular subtypes. ssGSEA revealed immune cell subtypes: Cluster B (high CYBB/ITGB2 expression) exhibited Treg/Th17 imbalance and hyperactivation of myeloid cells, suggesting a NETs-driven immune microenvironment heterogeneity. IHC confirmed elevated expression of ITGB2(LN: 0.179±0.018 vs. controls: 0.159±0.028, P < 0.05) and CYBB (LN: 0.152 ± 0.011 vs. controls: 0.144 ± 0.010, P < 0.05) in renal tissues, with CYBB showing glomerular upregulation (LN: 0.180±0.012 vs. controls: 0.156±0.017, P <0.001). Correlation analysis demonstrated that ITGB2 levels were negatively correlated with the chronicity index (CI) (r = -0.610, P = 0.007), while CYBB expression was positively correlated with serum creatinine (r = 0.606, P = 0.008) and inversely correlated with the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (r = -0.571, P = 0.013).

Conclusion: Through integrated bioinformatics and machine learning algorithms, CYBB and ITGB2 were identified as key regulatory genes of NETs in LN. Further, IHC CYBB exhibited significantly elevated expression in glomeruli, with significant correlations to SCr and eGFR. ITGB2 expression showed a negative correlation with CI, highlighting its distinct clinical relevance as a therapeutic target.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].