Unbiased Proteomics Analysis Demonstrates Significant Variability in Mucosal Immune Factor Expression Depending on the Site and Method of Collection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female genital tract secretions are commonly sampled by lavage of the ectocervix and vaginal vault or via a sponge inserted into the endocervix for evaluating inflammation status and immune factors critical for HIV microbicide and vaccine studies. This study uses a proteomics approach to comprehensively compare the efficacy of these methods, which sample from different compartments of the female genital tract, for the collection of immune factors. Matching sponge and lavage samples were collected from 10 healthy women and were analyzed by tandem mass spectrometry. Data was analyzed by a combination of differential protein expression analysis, hierarchical clustering and pathway analysis. Of the 385 proteins identified, endocervical sponge samples collected nearly twice as many unique proteins as cervicovaginal lavage (111 vs. 61) with 55% of proteins common to both (213). Each method/site identified 73 unique proteins that have roles in host immunity according to their gene ontology. Sponge samples enriched for specific inflammation pathways including acute phase response proteins (p = 3.37×10(-24)) and LXR/RXR immune activation pathways (p = 8.82×10(-22)) while the role IL-17A in psoriasis pathway (p = 5.98×10(-4)) and the complement system pathway (p = 3.91×10(-3)) were enriched in lavage samples. Many host defense factors were differentially enriched (p<0.05) between sites including known/potential antimicrobial factors (n = 21), S100 proteins (n = 9), and immune regulatory factors such as serpins (n = 7). Immunoglobulins (n = 6) were collected at comparable levels in abundance in each site although 25% of those identified were unique to sponge samples. This study demonstrates significant differences in types and quantities of immune factors and inflammation pathways collected by each sampling technique. Therefore, clinical studies that measure mucosal immune activation or factors assessing HIV transmission should utilize both collection methods to obtain the greatest representation of immune factors secreted into the female genital tract.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".