Stability of housekeeping genes in alveolar macrophages from COPD patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stability of housekeeping genes is critical when performing gene expression studies. To date, there have been no studies that look at the stability of commonly used housekeeping genes in alveolar macrophages. Expression levels may be affected by culture, stimulation or disease severity. The present study investigated the expression level of 10 housekeeping genes and analysed the stability of their expression in alveolar macrophages from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients (n = 22) who were classified according to disease severity. Guanine nucleotide-binding protein, beta polypeptide 2-like 1 (GNB2L1), hypoxanthine phosphoribosyl transferase 1 (HPRT1) and ribosomal protein L32 (RPL32) were the most stably expressed in alveolar macrophages, irrespective of disease severity. There was no difference in the expression levels of 10 housekeeping genes between mild and moderate/severe patients. GNB2L1, HPRT1 and RPL32 were also stably expressed in alveolar macrophages cultured with no stimulation, or with interleukin-1beta, lipopolysaccharide or tumour necrosis factor-alpha stimulation. In conclusion, as fluctuations in the expression of some housekeeping genes were observed, including glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, it is recommended that guanine nucleotide binding protein, beta polypeptide 2-like 1 be used as a reference gene for alveolar macrophages in similar study designs, or that the stability of housekeeping genes be validated in alveolar macrophages prior to expression studies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".