Serum Cytokine Receptors in Ankylosing Spondylitis: Relationship to Inflammatory Markers and Endoplasmic Reticulum Aminopeptidase Polymorphisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Endoplasmic reticulum aminopeptidase (ERAP)1 is associated with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and is known to be involved in the clipping of the cytokine receptors interleukin 1 receptor II (IL-1RII), IL-6Ralpha, and tumor necrosis factor receptor I (TNFRI). We studied the relationship of these serum cytokine receptors and their corresponding cytokines to markers of inflammation and polymorphisms in ERAP1 and ERAP2 in patients with AS. METHODS: Sera from patients with AS were assayed for TNF-alpha, IL-1, IL-6, sTNFRI, sIL-1RII, and sIL-6Ralpha by ELISA. Genotyping was performed for 3 AS-associated nonsynonymous single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the ERAP1 gene [rs27044(C/G), rs10050860(C/T), and rs30187(C/T)] and 1 in the ERAP2 gene [rs2549782(T/G)]. The serum cytokine and receptor levels were compared between the different genotype groups and correlated to markers of inflammation and disease activity. RESULTS: Eighty patients with AS (21 women) with a mean Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) of 5.3 +/- 2.4 were enrolled. There was a significant correlation of sTNFRI with C-reactive protein (CRP; R = 0.43, p < 0.001) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR; R = 0.30, p = 0.01) but not with BASDAI. Serum cytokine levels were undetectable in the majority of patients. There was no significant difference in serum cytokines or the soluble receptors between patients with the different ERAP1/ERAP2 polymorphisms and their haplotypes. Similarly, there was no relationship of the polymorphisms with the serum cytokine levels nor the cytokine-receptor ratio. CONCLUSION: Soluble TNFRI levels correlate with ESR and CRP in AS. The ERAP1 and ERAP2 polymorphisms associated with AS do not influence the serum cytokine receptor levels in patients with AS.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".