Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Sep 30.
doi: 10.1038/s41591-025-03964-5. Online ahead of print.

A consensus blood transcriptomic framework for sepsis

Affiliations

A consensus blood transcriptomic framework for sepsis

Brendon P Scicluna et al. Nat Med. .

Abstract

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition driven by a maladaptive host response to infection. To establish a standardized blood transcriptomic subtype model, we aggregated blood transcriptomics data from two major sepsis cohorts: the Molecular Diagnosis and Risk Stratification of Sepsis (MARS) project (n = 678 sampled on intensive care unit admission; ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT01905033 ) and the Genomic Advances in Sepsis (GAinS) study (n = 444 sampled on intensive care unit admission and n = 817 follow-up samples; ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT00131196 ). We demonstrate a strong interconnection across three separate classification methods, resulting in the proposed groupings of three consensus transcriptomic subtypes (CTSs). The distinguishing characteristics of CTS1 included gene activation of typical inflammatory pathways, more pronounced endothelial activation and an overall immature neutrophil theme. CTS2 was characterized by gene activation of a heme metabolism pathway, fibrinolytic disturbances and platelet and eosinophil signatures. CTS3 was associated with genes involved in the activation of allograft rejection, interferon signaling and anticoagulation functions, together with lymphocyte and nonclassical monocyte features. Evaluating CTS classification in independent patient cohorts, specifically the vasopressin vs noradrenaline as initial therapy in septic shock (VANISH) randomized controlled trial (n = 176; ISRCTN registration no. ISRCTN20769191 ) and patients hospitalized with suspected sepsis at a district hospital in Uganda (n = 128), ascertained the robustness of our approach. Notably, post hoc analysis of a pseudo-randomized cohort, along with a reanalysis of the VANISH trial data, unmasked a harmful signal in CTS2-assigned patients treated with corticosteroids. The CTS classification method aligns diverse sepsis transcriptomic subgroupings into a robust, reproducible framework, thereby enabling biological interpretation and potentially assisting aspects of clinical trial design to advance precision medicine in sepsis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: P.K. is co-founder, consultant to and a scientific adviser to Inflammatix. T.E.S. is co-founder, employee of and shareholder in Inflammatix. O.L.C. received in kind and in cash contributions to research from ImmuneXpress (2015–2019), Abionic (2021–2022), Prolira (2022–2024) and Presymptom Health (2023–2026). E.E.D. and K.L.B. report that the Wellcome Sanger Institute is supported by core funding from the Wellcome Trust (206194, 220540/Z/20/A). J.C.K. and K.C.-G. report funding from a grant to their institution from the Danaher Beacon Programme for work on RNA biomarker point-of-care test development for SRS in sepsis. T.v.d.P. reports research grants from the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme (FAIR, Immunosep), Inflammatix and the Ministry of Economic Affairs & Health Holland (all paid to the institution). For the purpose of open access, the authors have applied a CC BY public copyright license to any author-accepted manuscript version arising from this submission. The other authors declare no competing interests.

References

    1. Rudd, K. E. et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 395, 200–211 (2020). - PubMed - PMC - DOI
    1. Cecconi, M., Evans, L., Levy, M. & Rhodes, A. Sepsis and septic shock. Lancet 392, 75–87 (2018). - PubMed - DOI
    1. Prescott, H. C. & Angus, D. C. Enhancing recovery from sepsis: a review. JAMA 319, 62–75 (2018). - PubMed - PMC - DOI
    1. Marshall, J. C. Why have clinical trials in sepsis failed? Trends Mol. Med. 20, 195–203 (2014). - PubMed - DOI
    1. Cavaillon, J.-M., Singer, M. & Skirecki, T. Sepsis therapies: learning from 30 years of failure of translational research to propose new leads. EMBO Mol. Med. 12, e10128 (2020). - PubMed - PMC - DOI

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources