P014 Identification of Crohn’s disease immunopathotypes

• Published in: Journal of Crohn's and colitis Vol. 14; no. Supplement_1; p. S137
• Main Authors: Baer, H M, MacDonald, E, Ferguson, A, Scott, A M, Khan, M I, Bain, K A, Ijaz, U Z, Cole, J, Ramanujam, M, Nibbs, R J B, Gaya, D R, Milling, S W F
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: US Oxford University Press 15.01.2020
• ISSN: 1873-9946; 1876-4479
• DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz203.143

Abstract Background Crohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory gastrointestinal condition, with globally increasing incidence. Patients with CD suffer from a loss of tolerance towards their commensal microbiota causing an aberrant immune response, occurring in a protracted relapse and remission cycle. Although a variety of frontline therapies is currently available, including targeted therapies such as biologic drugs, 30–40% of CD patients still require surgery to manage the disease. At present, the immunobiology of CD is not fully understood. However, differences in immune responses between patients might play an important role in diverse treatment responses. The aim of this study was to identify differences in peripheral and local immune responses of CD to understand differences in disease behaviour and treatment outcome. Methods Peripheral blood mononuclear cells and plasma were isolated from whole blood of a cross-sectional CD patient cohort (nCD = 12) and normal controls (NC, nNC = 28). Flow cytometry analysis and multiplex assays were used to quantify immune cell populations and cytokine levels, respectively. The local immune response was analysed by bulk RNA sequencing of mucosal colonic biopsies either from inflamed CD or normal tissue. Gene signatures were then followed up by validation in publicly deposited gene expression datasets (nCD = 36, nNC = 24), and by measurement of specific proteins using our archived samples. Results Peripheral immunophenotyping of the initial cross-sectional study displayed three different types of CD patients, characterised by either a decrease in leukocyte populations, an increase of cytokines, or a change in both. Analysis of the RNAseq data derived from colonic biopsies revealed four distinct clusters in genes associated with the immune response in CD patients. Further pathway analysis showed one cluster with an enriched B cell signature and another cluster with an elevated macrophage and neutrophil response. We utilised publicly available gene expression datasets to validate these signatures in a larger cohort and identified a selection of patients with an up-regulated pro-inflammatory macrophage response. Using correlation analysis, we suggest an immunopathotype with increased macrophage activation which is potentially associated with a more severe form of the disease. Conclusion We have identified distinct immunopathotypes in both the peripheral and local immune response of CD patients. Further investigation will correlate these distinct immune responses in CD with clinical parameters, to understand associations between diverse treatment responses and disease behaviours.