MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Influence of Upstream IL‐2 ‐330 (T/G) and TNF‐α ‐308 (A/G) Polymorphisms on Glutamine‐Supplemented Cytokine Release

2010· article· en· W1963199406 on OpenAlexaff
Tobias Müller, Tobias Topp, K. Weismüller, M. Kwapisz, J. Engel

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Immunology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlutamineCytokineTumor necrosis factor alphaContext (archaeology)Immune systemGenotypeBiologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyImmunologyBiochemistryMedicineAmino acidGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various studies have shown that dietary glutamine can modify the course of an immune response, through altering the release of cytokines. Nutritional supplementation of glutamine may therefore be of advantage to patients, particularly those with compromised immunity. Given that polymorphisms in cytokine genes can also affect cytokine levels, we have undertaken a study to identify whether there was a differential effect of glutamine supplementation in the context of different IL-2 -330 (T/G) and TNF-α -308 (A/G) genotypes. Overall, there was no significant impact of glutamine supplementation on IL2 release. However, analysing low, medium and high expressors independently, there was an effect of high glutamine levels on cytokine release from the low and medium expressors. Likewise, there was no effect of glutamine supplementation on the TNF-α release, although a tendency to lower cytokine release at high levels of glutamine. Irrespective of the glutamine concentrations, there was no difference in IL2 release between the IL2 -330 genotypes; there was an effect of the TNF-α genotypes, with the AG and GG genotypes showing greater cytokine release than from the AA genotype.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of ImmunologySame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207