Anti-Trim72 Autoantibodies in Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives The pathogenic mechanisms that underlie the idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) are complex and not well understood. Triparite motif-containing protein 72 (TRIM72) is expressed in the sarcolemma and mediates membrane-repair following muscle injury.[1] Autoantibodies directed against TRIM72 (anti-TRIM72) have been identified in IIM patients.[2] Anti-TRIM72 autoantibodies may contribute to disease pathogenesis by disrupting the endogenous repair functions of TRIM72.[2] The aim of this study was to investigate the anti-TRIM72 expression and associated clinical characteristics in IIM patients. Methods Sera from patients meeting a clinical diagnosis of IIM patients (dermatomyositis [DM], antisynthetase syndrome [ASyS], immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy [IMNM]) and healthy controls (HC) were included. Anti-TRIM72 autoantibodies were tested using enzyme-linked to immunosorbent assay. Anti-TRIM72 testing was positive if normalized value was >2 standard deviations above the mean for healthy controls. Maximum CK and lowest recorded DLCO were identified through retrospective chart review. One-way ANOVA and Student’s T test were used to compare groups. Results There were 523 IIM patients (ASyS, n=200; IMNM, n=198; DM, n=125) and 67 HC included. Mean anti-TRIM72 levels were significantly increased in patients with ASyS and IMNM when compared to patients with DM and healthy controls (1-way ANOVA, p<0.0001) (Figure 1A). There were 82 ASyS patients had available clinical data and 17.1% (n=14) were anti-TRIM72 positive. When CK values were assessed in patients with ASyS, there was no significant difference between anti-TRIM72 positive patients when compared to those who were negative (difference 1027U/L, 95% CI −1711 to 3765) (Figure 1B). When mean diffusion capacities (lowest DLCO %) were compared between anti-TRIM72 positive and negative ASyS patients, there was no significant difference between groups (difference 5.0%, 95% CI −9.5 to 19.5) (Figure 1C). In patients with IMNM, 14.0% were anti-TRIM72 positive (13/93). There was no significant difference in peak CK when anti-TRIM72 positive and negative IMNM patients (difference −913.9, 95% CI −6097 to 4270) (Figure 1D). Figure 1: Anti-TRIM72 Titres and Association with CK and DLCO in IIM. A) Anti-TRIM72 levels were increased in ASyS patients when compared to DM patients (mean difference 0.65, 95%CI 0.4032 to 0.8940) and HC (mean difference 0.67, 95%CI 0.36 to 0.97). Patients with IMNM had significantly higher anti-TRIM72 titres when compared to those with DM (mean difference 0.44, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.69) and HC (mean difference 0.46, 95%CI 0.15 to 0.76). There was no significant difference when patients with DM were compared to HC (mean difference 0.02, 95%CI −0.31 to 0.35). B) In patients with ASyS, there was a no significant difference in peak CK (U/L) between anti-TRIM72 positive and negative patients (difference 1027, 95%CI −1711 to 3765). In patients with ASyS, there was no significant difference in lowest recorded DLCO (%) between anti-TRIM72 positive and negative patients (difference 5.0,95%CI −9.5 to 19.5). In patients with IMNM, there was no significant difference in peak CK (U/L) between anti-TRIM72 positive and negative patients (difference −913.9, 95%CI −6097 to 4270). Abbreviations: ASyS, antisynthetase syndrome; CK, creatine kinase; DLCO, diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide; DM, dermatomyositis; HC, healthy control; IIM, idiopathic inflammatory myopathy; IMNM, immune mediated necrotizing myopathy; TRIM, tripartite motif-containing protein 72. Conclusion Anti-TRIM72 autoantibodies are expressed in a subset of patients with both ASyS and IMNM. Previous studies have suggested a pathogenic role in IIM; however, further studies are needed to understand the clinical manifestations and utility of these autoantibodies. [1.] Cai C. Biophys J 2009:96(3);361a. [2.] McElhanon KE. J Clin Invest 2020:130(8);4440-55.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».