Expression of Fas antigen and Fas ligand in bronchoalveolar lavage from silicosis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the role of apoptosis through Fas/Fas ligand (FasL) interaction in the pathogenesis of silicosis, we examined the expression of Fas antigen, FasL and apoptosis in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid lymphocytes obtained from patients with silicosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients with silicosis, and 10 healthy controls were studied. Non-adherent cells were separated and analysed by cytometry for the expression of Fas antigen, FasL, and the co-expression of Fas/FasL. By double staining, we studied the FasL expression on CD4, CD8, CD56 and CD45RO-positive cells. DNA fragmentation was investigated by the terminal deoxy(d) UTP nick end labelling (TUNEL) method. RESULTS: We have found Fas and FasL expression in silicosis patients to be significantly higher than those in healthy controls. Interestingly, 6-18% of lymphocytes from silicosis patients co-expressed Fas and FasL. In silicosis patients, FasL was highly expressed on CD4+, CD56+ and CD45RO+ bronchoalveolar lavage cells. Fas antigen expressing cells showed DNA fragmentation characteristic for apoptosis. CONCLUSION: FasL was significantly expressed on cytotoxic effector and memory cells. The Fas/FasL system is implicated in the inflammatory process observed in silicosis patients.
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".