Expression of complement messenger RNAs and proteins by human oligodendroglial cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurons, astrocytes, microglia, and endothelial cells are capable of synthesizing most, if not all, of the complement proteins. Little is known, however, about the capacity of oligodendroglial cells to generate complement components. This study evaluated expression of complement mRNAs and their protein products by human oligodendrocytes. Cells were isolated and cultured from white matter of seven adult cases that had undergone surgical temporal lobe resection for epilepsy. Oligodendroglial cultures were characterized by the expression of such cell type-specific mRNAs as myelin proteolipid protein (PLP), oligodendrocyte-specific protein (OSP), and 2',3'-cyclic nucleotide 3'-phosphodiesterase (CNPase) and were further characterized by immunostaining for such differentiation markers as myelin basic protein (MBP), PLP, CNPase, and O4. RT-PCR analysis showed that the oligodendroglial cells expressed detectable levels of complement mRNAs for the C1q B-chain, C1r, C1s, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8 gamma subunit, and C9. Immunostaining was positive for C1q, C1s, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, and C9. Double immunostaining for the oligodendrocyte marker O4 and the complement protein C3 demonstrated that all O4-positive cells were also positive for C3, indicating constitutive C3 expression. These results indicate that oligodendroglial cells may be a source of complement proteins in human brain and thus could contribute to the pathogenesis of several neurodegenerative and inflammatory diseases of the CNS, such as Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, and progressive supranuclear palsy, where complement-activated oligodendrocytes are abundant.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".