Carriage of a Tumor Necrosis Factor Polymorphism Amplifies the Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Antigen 4 Attributed Risk of Primary Biliary Cirrhosis: Evidence for a Gene–Gene Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Common genetic variants significantly influence complex diseases such as primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC). We recently reported an association between PBC and a single nucleotide polymorphism (rs231725) of the immunoreceptor gene cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA4). We hypothesized that PBC risk attributed to this polymorphism might be increased by propensity to an overly robust inflammatory response. Thus, we examined its potential interaction with the commonly studied -308AG promoter polymorphism (rs1800629) of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) gene for which the variant TNF2A allele causes increased TNF production. The polymorphisms were genotyped in 866 PBC patients and 761 controls from independent US and Canadian registries; the effects of individual single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and their interaction on PBC risk was assessed by logistic regression. The reported association of PBC with the CTLA4 "A/A" genotype was replicated in the Canadian cohort and significant for PBC risk in the combined data (odds ratio [OR], 1.68; P = 0.0005). TNF2A allele frequency was elevated in PBC patients, but only reached borderline significance using the combined data (OR, 1.21; P = 0.042). Analysis showed that TNF2A carriage was significantly increased in CTLA4 "A/A" PBC patients compared with CTLA4 "A/A" controls (39.7% versus 16.5%, P = 0.0004); no apparent increase of TNF2A carriage was noted in CTLA4 "A/G" or "G/G" individuals. Finally, interaction under a logistic model was highly significant, as TNF2A carriage in combination with the CTLA4 "A/A" genotype was present in 6.5% of PBC patients, compared with 1.7% of controls (OR, 3.98; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: TNF2A amplifies the CTLA4 rs231725 "A/A" genotype risk for PBC. Although the mechanisms remain unclear, the premise that deficiency in T-cell regulation resulting in an increased risk of PBC is amplified by overexpression of an important proinflammatory cytokine provides a basis for future functional studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".