S100B and neurofibromin immunostaining and X‐inactivation patterns of laser‐microdissected cells indicate a multicellular origin of some NF1‐associated neurofibromas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) is an autosomal dominant disease that predisposes individuals to developing benign neurofibromas. Some features and consequences of NF1 appear to result from partial deficiency of neurofibromin (Nfn), the NF1 gene protein product, as a result of haploinsufficiency for the NF1 gene. Other features and consequences of NF1 appear to involve total deficiency of Nfn, which arises as a result of either loss of function of the second NF1 allele or excess degradation of Nfn produced by the second allele in a particular clone of cells. We used immunofluorescence to assess the presence of Nfn in putative Schwann cells (S100B(+) ) and non-Schwann cells (S100B(-) ) in 36 NF1-derived benign neurofibromas classified histologically as diffuse or encapsulated. The S100B(+) /Nfn(-) cell population made up only 18% ± 10% (mean ± standard deviation) of the neurofibroma cells in both the diffuse and encapsulated neurofibromas. The proportion of S100B(+) /Nfn(+) cells was significantly higher and the proportion of S100B(-) /Nfn(-) cells was significantly lower in diffuse neurofibromas than in encapsulated neurofibromas. We isolated S100B(+) /Nfn(+) , S100B(+) /Nfn(-) , and S100B(-) /Nfn(+) cells by laser microdissection and, using X-chromosome inactivation profiles, assessed clonality for each cell type. We showed that, although some neurofibromas include a subpopulation of S100B(+) /Nfn(-) cells consistent with clonal expansion of a Schwann cell progenitor that has lost function of both NF1 alleles, other neurofibromas do not show evidence of monoclonal proliferation of Schwann cells. Our findings suggest that, although clonal loss of neurofibromin function is probably involved in the development of some NF1-associated neurofibromas, other pathogenic processes also occur.
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 | 0.001 |
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".