Changes in elastin, elastin binding protein and versican in alveoli in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: COPD is characterised by loss of alveolar elastic fibers and by lack of effective repair. Elastic fibers are assembled at cell surfaces by elastin binding protein (EBP), a molecular chaperone whose function can be reversibility inhibited by chondroitin sulphate of matrix proteoglycans such as versican. This study aimed to determine if alveoli of patients with mild to moderate COPD contained increased amounts of versican and a corresponding decrease in EBP, and if these changes were correlated with decreases in elastin and FEV1. METHODS: Lung samples were obtained from 26 control (FEV1 > or = 80% predicted, FEV1/VC >0.7) and 17 COPD patients (FEV1 > or = 40% - <80% predicted, FEV1/VC < or = 0.7) who had undergone a lobectomy for bronchial carcinoma. Samples were processed for histological and immuno-staining. Volume fractions (Vv) of elastin in alveolar walls and alveolar rims were determined by point counting, and versican and EBP assessed by grading of staining intensities. RESULTS: Elastin Vv was positively correlated with FEV1 for both the alveolar walls (r = 0.66, p < 0.001) and rims (r = 0.41, p < 0.01). Versican was negatively correlated with FEV1 in both regions (r = 0.30 and 0.32 respectively, p < 0.05), with the highest staining intensities found in patients with the lowest values for FEV1. Conversely, staining intensities for EBP in alveolar walls and rims and were positively correlated with FEV1 (r = 0.43 and 0.46, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients with mild to moderate COPD show progressively increased immuno-staining for versican and correspondingly decreased immuno-staining for EBP, with decreasing values of FEV1. These findings may explain the lack of repair of elastic fibers in the lungs of patients with moderate COPD. Removal of versican may offer a strategy for effective repair.
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) | 0.001 | 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".