Polymorphisms Associated with Expression of BPIFA1/BPIFB1 and Lung Disease Severity in Cystic Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BPI fold containing family A, member 1 (BPIFA1) and BPIFB1 are putative innate immune molecules expressed in the upper airways. Because of their hypothesized roles in airway defense, these molecules may contribute to lung disease severity in cystic fibrosis (CF). We interrogated BPIFA1/BPIFB1 single-nucleotide polymorphisms in data from an association study of CF modifier genes and found an association of the G allele of rs1078761 with increased lung disease severity (P = 2.71 × 10(-4)). We hypothesized that the G allele of rs1078761 is associated with decreased expression of BPIFA1 and/or BPIFB1. Genome-wide lung gene expression and genotyping data from 1,111 individuals with lung disease, including 51 patients with CF, were tested for associations between genotype and BPIFA1 and BPIFB1 gene expression levels. Findings were validated by quantitative PCR in a subset of 77 individuals. Western blotting was used to measure BPIFA1 and BPIFB1 protein levels in 93 lung and 101 saliva samples. The G allele of rs1078761 was significantly associated with decreased mRNA levels of BPIFA1 (P = 4.08 × 10(-15)) and BPIFB1 (P = 0.0314). These findings were confirmed with quantitative PCR and Western blotting. We conclude that the G allele of rs1078761 may be detrimental to lung function in CF owing to decreased levels of BPIFA1 and BPIFB1.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".