Biomarkers in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Evaluation of Natural Killer Cell Function and Dipeptidyl Peptidase IV/CD26
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) studies from our laboratory and others described decreased natural killer cell cytotoxicity (NKCC) and elevated proportion of lymphocytes expressing the activation marker, dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPPIV) also known as CD26. However, neither these assays nor other laboratory tests are widely accepted for the diagnosis or prognosis of CFS. This study sought to determine if NKCC or DPPIV/CD26 have diagnostic accuracy for CFS. METHODS/RESULTS: Subjects included female and male CFS cases and healthy controls. NK cell function was measured with a bioassay, using K562 cells and (51)Cr release. Lymphocyte associated DPPIV/CD26 was assayed by qualitative and quantitative flow cytometry. Serum DPPIV/CD26 was measured by ELISA. Analysis by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve assessed biomarker potential. Cytotoxic function of NK cells for 176 CFS subjects was significantly lower than in the 230 controls. According to ROC analysis, NKCC was a good predictor of CFS status. There was no significant difference in NK cell counts between cases and controls. Percent CD2+ lymphocytes (T cells and NK cells) positive for DPPIV/C26 was elevated in CFS cases, but there was a decrease in the number of molecules (rMol) of DPPIV/C26 expressed on T cells and NK cells and a decrease in the soluble form of the enzyme in serum. Analyses by ROC curves indicated that all three measurements of DPPIV/CD26 demonstrated potential as biomarkers for CFS. None of the DPPIV/C26 assays were significantly correlated with NKCC. CONCLUSIONS: By ROC analysis, NKCC and three methods of measuring DPPIV/C26 examined in this study had potential as biomarkers for CFS. Of these, NKCC, %CD2+CD26+ lymphocytes and rMol CD26/CD2+ lymphocyte, required flow cytometry, fresh blood and access to a high complexity laboratory. Soluble DPPIV/C26 in serum is done with a standard ELISA assay, or with other soluble factors in a multiplex type of ELISA. Dipeptidyl peptidase IV on lymphocytes or in serum was not predictive of NKCC suggesting that these should be considered as non-redundant biomarkers. Abnormalities in DPPIV/CD26 and in NK cell function have particular relevance to the possible role of infection in the initiation and/or the persistence of CFS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".