Genetic Polymorphisms of <i>Foxp3</i> in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify 2 polymorphic variants in the promoter region of the Foxp3 gene and their possible association with susceptibility to and severity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The association between genetic factors and pathogenesis suggests that T cells take part in the induction of RA. The CD4+CD25highFoxp3+ subset of regulatory T cells plays an essential role in preventing autoimmunity and maintaining immune homeostasis. METHODS: Patients with RA (n = 274) and healthy individuals (n = 295) were examined for -3279 C/A and -924 A/G Foxp3 gene polymorphisms by the polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment-length polymorphism method. Serum Foxp3 levels in patients with RA and controls were measured with ELISA. RESULTS: Foxp3 -3279 A and -924 G alleles were associated with significantly elevated risk of RA in the population tested (p = 0.003 and p = 0.004, respectively) compared to the wild-type alleles. Overall, -3279 C/A and -924 A/G Foxp3 gene polymorphisms were in indistinct linkage disequilibrium with D' = 0.481 and r(2) = 0.225. From 4 possible haplotypes, frequencies of 2 (AG and CA) showed significant differences between both examined groups (respectively, p < 0.001 and p = 0.007). After appropriate adjustment of Bonferroni correction for multiple testing, the genotype-phenotype analysis showed no significant correlation of the Foxp3 -3279 C/A and -924 A/G polymorphisms with the disease activity, joint damage, laboratory variables, and extraarticular manifestation in patients with RA. Serum Foxp3 level was significantly higher in patients than in controls (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Current findings indicated that the Foxp3 genetic polymorphism and the Foxp3 protein level may be associated with susceptibility to RA in the Polish population.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".