Proteomic analysis of urine from proteinuric patients shows a proteolitic activity directed against albumin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nephrotic syndrome is a condition that is clinically associated with poor outcome. In this study, we compared different techniques of urine sample preparation in order to develop a robust analytical protocol to define the differential urinary proteome of urinary abnormalities compared to nephrotic proteinuria. METHODS: We recruited 5 normal control subjects, 16 patients with urinary abnormalities and 16 patients with nephrotic syndrome. Proteins from normal urine were processed using three different protocols [acetone, ultrafiltration and trichloroacetic acid (TCA) precipitation], depletion of albumin and IgGs and then analysed by two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (2D-PAGE) gels and mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Comparing the three extraction methods by visual inspection of gels after 2D gel electrophoresis, the acetone precipitation and TCA methods yielded the best quality of protein extraction, while the acetone precipitation method was the most efficient. Furthermore, we tested three commercial kits for albumin and IgG depletion. We applied the optimized acetone extraction protocol to compare urinary samples from nephrotic patients (NP) to urinary samples obtained from patients presenting with urinary abnormalities (UAP). We observed a proteolytic activity directed against albumin. This observation was more prevalent in urinary samples from NP than from UAP. Within both groups, there was some inter-individual variability in the observed proteolytic activity. An increased concentration of alpha1 antitrypsin was also observed in urine of NP. We analysed albumin fragmentation by 1D and 2D western blots in the same samples skipping the albumin and IgG depletion steps to avoid the possible confound of albumin fragment removal. The analysis confirmed a stronger proteolytic activity in the nephrotic group. CONCLUSIONS: The proteolytic activity against albumin and the anti-proteolytic activity of alpha1 antitrypsin are likely linked and could play an important role in the nephrotic process. If replicated in larger samples, this methodology may lead to a better understanding of the underlying pathophysiological process of nephrotic syndrome.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".