The observed alteration in BCL2 expression following lithium treatment is influenced by the choice of normalization method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upregulation of B-cell CLL/lymphoma (BCL)2 expression following lithium treatment is seemingly well established and has been related to the neuroprotective property of the drug. However, while demonstrated by some (but not all) studies based on low-throughput techniques (e.g. qPCR) this effect is not reflected in high-throughput studies, such as microarrays and RNAseq. This manuscript presents a systematic review of currently available reports of lithium's effect on BCL2 expression. To our surprise, we found that the majority of the literature does not support the effect of lithium on BCL2 transcript or protein levels. Moreover, among the positive reports, several used therapeutically irrelevant lithium doses while others lack statistical power. We also noticed that numerous low-throughput studies normalized the signal using genes/proteins affected by lithium, imposing possible bias. Using wet bench experiments and reanalysis of publicly available microarray data, here we show that the reference gene chosen for normalization critically impacts the outcome of qPCR analyses of lithium's effect on BCL2 expression. Our findings suggest that experimental results might be severely affected by the choice of normalizing genes, and emphasize the need to re-evaluate stability of these genes in the context of the specific experimental conditions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".