Genetic Variation of Promoter Sequence Modulates XBP1 Expression and Genetic Risk for Vitiligo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our previous genome-wide linkage analysis identified a susceptibility locus for generalized vitiligo on 22q12. To search for susceptibility genes within the locus, we investigated a biological candidate gene, X-box binding protein 1(XBP1). First, we sequenced all the exons, exon-intron boundaries as well as some 5' and 3' flanking sequences of XBP1 in 319 cases and 294 controls of Chinese Hans. Of the 8 common variants identified, the significant association was observed at rs2269577 (p_(trend) = 0.007, OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.09-1.71), a putative regulatory polymorphism within the promoter region of XBP1. We then sequenced the variant in an additional 365 cases and 404 controls and found supporting evidence for the association (p_(trend) = 0.008, OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.07-1.59). To further validate the association, we genotyped the variant in another independent sample of 1,402 cases and 1,288 controls, including 94 parent-child trios, and confirmed the association by both case-control analysis (p_(trend) = 0.003, OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.06-1.32) and the family-based transmission disequilibrium test (TDT, p = 0.005, OR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.21-3.07). The analysis of the combined 2,086 cases and 1,986 controls provided highly significant evidence for the association (p_(trend) = 2.94x10(-6), OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.13-1.35). Furthermore, we also found suggestive epistatic effect between rs2269577 and HLA-DRB1*07 allele on the development of vitiligo (p = 0.033). Our subsequent functional study showed that the risk-associated C allele of rs2269577 had a stronger promoter activity than the non-risk G allele, and there was an elevated expression of XBP1 in the lesional skins of patients carrying the risk-associated C allele. Therefore, our study has demonstrated that the transcriptional modulation of XBP1 expression by a germ-line regulatory polymorphism has an impact on the development of vitiligo.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".