BPIFB1 (LPLUNC1) is upregulated in cystic fibrosis lung disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the biology the PLUNC (recently renamed BPI fold, BPIF) family of secreted proteins is poorly understood, multiple array based studies have suggested that some are differentially expressed in lung diseases. We have examined the expression of BPIFB1 (LPLUNC1), the prototypic two-domain containing family member, in lungs from CF patients and in mouse models of CF lung disease. BPIFB1 was localized in CF lung samples along with BPIFA1, MUC5AC, CD68 and NE and directly compared to histologically normal lung tissues and that of bacterial pneumonia. We generated novel antibodies to mouse BPIF proteins to conduct similar studies on ENaC transgenic (ENaC-Tg) mice, a model for CF-like lung disease. Small airways in CF demonstrated marked epithelial staining of BPIFB1 in goblet cells but staining was absent from alveolar regions. BPIFA1 and BPIFB1 were not co-localised in the diseased lungs. In ENaC-Tg mice there was strong staining of both proteins in the airways and luminal contents. This was most marked for BPIFB1 and was noted within 2 weeks of birth. The two proteins were present in distinct cells within epithelium. BPIFB1 was readily detected in BAL from ENaC-Tg mice but was absent from wild-type mice. Alterations in the expression of BPIF proteins is associated with CF lung disease in humans and mice. It is unclear if this elevation of protein production, which results from phenotypic alteration of the cells within the diseased epithelium, plays a role in the pathogenesis of the disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".