Coexistence of Different Circulating Anti-Podocyte Antibodies in Membranous Nephropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The discovery of different podocyte autoantibodies in membranous nephropathy (MN) raises questions about their pathogenetic and clinical meaning. This study sought to define antibody isotypes and correlations; to compare levels in MN, other glomerulonephritides, and controls; and to determine their association with clinical outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Serum IgG(1), IgG(3), and IgG(4) against aldose reductase (AR), SOD2, and α-enolase (αENO) were measured at diagnosis in 186 consecutive MN patients, in 96 proteinuric controls (36 with FSGS, and 60 with IgA nephropathy), and in 92 healthy people recruited in four Italian nephrology units. Anti-phospholipase A2 receptor (PLA2r) and anti-neutral endopeptidase (NEP) IgG(4) were titrated in the same specimens. Association with 1-year follow-up clinical parameters was studied in 120 patients. RESULTS: IgG(4) was the most common isotype for all antibodies; IgG(1) and IgG(3) were nearly negligible. IgG(4) levels were positive in a significant proportion of MN patients (AR, 34%; SOD2, 28%; αENO, 43%). Antibody titers were higher in MN than in healthy and pathologic controls (P<0.005). Anti-NEP IgG(4) did not differ from normal controls (P=0.12). Anti-PLA2r IgG(4) was detected in 60% of patients and correlated with anti-AR, anti-SOD2, and anti-αENO IgG(4) (P<0.001). In MN patients negative for the whole antibody panel (20%), 1-year proteinuria was lower compared with patients with at least one antibody positivity (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that IgG(4) is the prevalent isotype for antibodies against cytoplasmic antigens of podocytes (AR, SOD2, αENO). Their levels were higher than in other proteinuric glomerulonephritides and in normal controls and were correlated with anti-PLA2r. Only baseline negativity for all known antibodies predicted lower 1-year proteinuria.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".