Amino-Terminal Form of Parathyroid Hormone (PTH) with Immunologic Similarities to hPTH(1–84) Is Overproduced in Primary and Secondary Hyperparathyroidism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To separate non-(1-84)parathyroid hormone [non-(1-84)PTH] from PTH(1-84), we developed new HPLC gradients and observed that the peak coeluting with hPTH(1-84) could be separated into two entities recognized by a cyclase-activating PTH (CA-PTH) assay that reacts with the first four amino acids of the PTH structure. METHODS: Sera from six healthy individuals and five patients with primary hyperparathyroidism, and eight pools of sera from patients in renal failure were fractionated by HPLC. A total (T)-PTH assay reacting with the (15-20) region, the CA-PTH assay, and a COOH-terminal (C)-PTH assay with a (65-84) structure requirement were used to measure basal and fractionated PTH values. RESULTS: T-PTH was higher than CA-PTH in all healthy controls [mean (SD), 3.13 (0.37) vs 2.29 (0.33) pmol/L; P <0.01] and in renal failure patients [47 (35.1) vs 33.4 (26.1) pmol/L; P <0.01]. By contrast, CA-PTH concentrations were similar to or higher than T-PTH in three of five patients with primary hyperparathyroidism [25.7 (26.1) vs 23.1 (24.2) pmol/L; not significant]. The CA-PTH assay reacted with the hPTH(1-84) peak and with a minor peak different from the non-(1-84) peak recognized by the T-PTH assay. This minor peak was not recognized by the T-PTH assay. It represented 8 (2)% of CA-PTH in controls, 25 (23)% in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism, and 22 (7)% in renal failure patients, assuming equimolar reactivity to hPTH(1-84) in the CA-PTH assay. It was not oxidized hPTH(1-84), which migrated differently on HPLC and reacted similarly in the CA and T-PTH assays. CONCLUSIONS: This new molecular form of PTH has structural integrity of the (1-4) region but presumably is modified in the region (15-20), which is usually recognized by the T-PTH assay. Its clinical implications remain to be defined.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".