Effects of Sample Timing and Treatment on Gene Expression in Early Acute Renal Allograft Rejection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We have shown that genomic biomarkers in peripheral blood provide evidence of early graft rejection and may offer an important option for posttransplant monitoring, and we are working to improve this signature to maximize assay performance. METHODS: This clinical refinement study (n=79) used gene expression profiling in a case-control design to compare whole blood samples between normal subjects (n=20) and patients with (n=20) or without (n=39) biopsy-confirmed acute rejection (BCAR). RESULTS: Gene expression in peripheral blood from subjects with BCAR before treatment differed significantly from that of normal subjects and transplant recipients without BCAR. Hierarchical clustering and principal component analysis showed that samples obtained 1 to 5 days after the start of treatment of BCAR were segregated across both groups before treatment or without BCAR and that this was closely related to the time lag between treatment and sampling. Genes differentially expressed during BCAR included FKSG49, LMAN2, NFYC, LIMK2, JUNB, NASP, MALAT1, ITGAX, HLA-J, FKBP1A, and RBMS1, and gene ontology analysis highlighted changes in networks related to cytoskeletal reorganization, apoptosis, and immune signaling, whereas after treatment change highlighted pathways of cellular metabolism, cell-cycle regulation, DNA damage, and apoptosis. CONCLUSION: Gene expression in the peripheral blood is associated with BCAR, and the pattern of expression changes rapidly after treatment. This may offer a potential tool for diagnosis of rejection and immunologic monitoring of response to treatment, which is now being evaluated in a large multicenter international study.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".