Intrinsic Biochemical and Functional Differences in Bronchial Epithelial Cells of Children with Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Convincing evidence of epithelial damage and aberrant repair exists in adult asthmatic airways, even in the absence of inflammation. However, comparable studies in children have been limited by access and availability of clinical samples. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether bronchial epithelial cells from children with asthma are inherently distinct from those obtained from children without asthma. METHODS: Epithelial cells were obtained by nonbronchoscopic bronchial brushing of children with mild asthma (n = 7), atopic children without asthma (n = 9), and healthy children (n = 12). Cells were subject to morphologic, biochemical, molecular, and functional assessment. Responses were also compared with commercially available epithelial cultures and the transformed cell line 16HBE140. RESULTS: All epithelial cells exhibited a "cobblestone" morphology, which was maintained throughout culture and repeated passage. Expression of cytokeratin 19 varied, with disease phenotype being greatest in healthy nonatopics and lowest in asthmatics. In contrast, expression of cytokeratin 5/14 was greatest in asthmatic samples and least in healthy nonatopic samples. Asthmatic epithelial cells also spontaneously produced significantly greater amounts of interleukin (IL)-6, prostaglandin E2, and epidermal growth factor, and equivalent amounts of IL-1beta and soluble intracellular adhesion molecule-1, but significantly lower amounts of transforming growth factor beta1. This profile was maintained through successive passages. Asthmatic epithelial cells also exhibited greater rates of proliferation than nonasthmatic cells. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that epithelial cells from children with mild asthma are intrinsically different both biochemically and functionally compared with epithelial cells from children without asthma. Importantly, these differences are maintained over successive passages, suggesting that they are not dependent on an in vivo environment.
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) | 0.000 | 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".