Differences in ERK Activation in Squamous Mucosa in Patients Who Have Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease with and without Barrett's Esophagus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In some patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), the reflux-damaged esophageal squamous epithelium heals through the process of intestinal metaplasia (resulting in Barrett's esophagus) rather than through the regeneration of more squamous cells. We hypothesized that squamous epithelium in Barrett's esophagus might have abnormalities in activation of the extracellular-regulated kinases 1 and 2 (ERK1/2) signaling pathway that may facilitate esophageal repair through metaplasia in response to acid-induced injury. METHODS: Endoscopic biopsies were taken from distal esophageal squamous mucosa in patients who had GERD with and without Barrett's esophagus and in controls, before and after esophageal perfusion with 0.1 N HCl acid. Basal ERK1/2 phosphorylation, acid-induced ERK1/2 activity and phosphorylation, and localization of phosphorylated ERK1/2 were determined using immunoblotting, Western blotting, and immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Compared to patients with Barrett's esophagus, patients with GERD exhibited significantly lower baseline levels of phosphorylated ERK1/2 expression (35 +/- 4%vs 90 +/- 21% control, p= 0.01) Acid exposure significantly increased ERK1/2 activity (346.6 +/- 51.90 to 446.8 +/- 62.44 RIU, p= 0.02) and phosphorylation (3.55 +/- 1.26 to 4.49 +/- 1.25 [ratio phospho/total ERK], p= 0.01) in the squamous mucosa of GERD patients, but not in those with Barrett's esophagus or in controls. CONCLUSIONS: Between patients with Barrett's esophagus and patients with uncomplicated GERD, there are significant differences in baseline levels and in acid-induced activation of ERK1/2 in esophageal squamous epithelium. To our knowledge, this is the first description of a molecular, phenotypic feature that distinguishes the esophageal squamous mucosa of GERD patients with and without Barrett's esophagus.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".