Reply to Letter to the Editor: a Response to the Letter of M. Tisdale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Response: Murine proteolysis-inducing factor (PIF) is composed of a short peptide core with extensive N- and O-linked oligosaccharide chains. A human homologue of PIF has proved elusive, using approaches based on the structure of murine PIF. As for a human variant of the core peptide, the absence of a motif for glycosylation (1, 2) remains the most important barrier to accepting the notion that human cancer cells transform the dermcidin gene product into a PIF. As for the carbohydrate moieties that confer the proteolysis-inducing activity, the only means available for their identification or purification, a monoclonal antibody, is not a valid tool in human studies owing to extensive nonspecific binding (2). This fact is now acknowledged by M. Tisdale, and draws into question prior PIF immunoblot results in human subjects (3–5).M. Tisdale provides no new insight about how human PIF could be revealed, if it were present. The suggestion that PIF can be verified by colocalization of reactions with antibodies to the core protein and carbohydrate is not useful because no antibody is specific for the critical carbohydrate part. Investigations of the putative human PIF have eluded efforts to find evidence of colocalization, in human-derived materials, of the peptide core, the oligosaccharide chains, and the proteolysis-inducing activity. The human core peptide is not glycosylated by human tumor cells and its presence in tumor cells bears no relationship to a cachexia phenotype (1, 2, 6). Similarly, a positive reaction with the antibody to the carbohydrate chain does not relate to either cachexia or malignant disease in humans (2–5) and none of the proteins reacting with this antibody are associated with a peptide of the sequence described for the core protein (2).Human PIF is a molecule reported, to date, exclusively by a single laboratory, and this is the greatest limitation for the interest of PIF for our understanding of cancer cachexia. M. Tisdale could greatly clarify this research domain by disseminating to independent laboratories authentic human PIF with the structural and biological features claimed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.037 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
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".