Downregulation of T-Cell Transcription Factors in Adult Latent Autoimmune Diabetes with High-Titer Glutamic Acid Decaroxylase Antibody
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Latent autoimmune diabetes in adults (LADA) shows a heterogeneous clinical profile that is dependent on the glutamic acid decaroxylase antibody (GADA) titer. We speculated that LADA patients with a high or low GADA titer may have distinct T-lymphocyte subset profiles and distinct expression patterns of transcription factors involved in T-cell immunomodulation. METHODS: Patients with LADA (n = 40) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM; n = 14) were recruited to the study, and peripheral blood mononuclear cells were isolated. The proportions of T-lymphocyte subsets (Th1 [T helper type 1], Th2 [T helper type 2], Treg [regulatory T], and Th17 [T helper type 17] cells) were determined by flow cytometry. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed to estimate mRNA expression levels of the T-cell subtype-enriched transcription factors T-bet (Th1), GATA3 (Th2), transcription factor forkhead box protein 3 (FOXP3) (Treg), and RORC (Th17). RESULTS: T cells) was greater in the LADA patients with high-titer GADA than in the LADA patients with low-titer GADA (11.06 ± 1.62 vs. 7.05 ± 0.86, P = 0.030). Compared to the T2DM group, in the low-titer GADA group the frequency of Th1 was significantly reduced (7.05 ± 0.86 vs. 16.75 ± 3.73, P = 0.017) and the frequency of Th17 frequency was signficantly increased (1.11 ± 0.09 vs. 0.74 ± 0.16, P = 0.017). Compared to T2DM patients, in the high-titer GADA group there was a significantly reduced expression of FOXP3 (0.35 ± 0.13 vs. 1.75 ± 0.54, P = 0.002), RORC (0.53 ± 0.19 vs. 2.00 ± 0.77, P = 0.046), and GATA3 (0.74 ± 0.17 vs. 2.31 ± 0.91, P = 0.046). Similarly, the high-titer GADA group expressed reduced levels of FOXP3 and RORC compared to the low-titer GADA group (0.35 ± 0.13 vs. 1.50 ± 0.41, P = 0.027; 0.53 ± 0.19 vs. 1.35 ± 0.21, P = 0.027, respectively). There was a negative correlation between FOXP3 expression level and GADA titer for the entire cohort (r = - 0.0433, P = 0.015) and a stronger negative correlation in LADA patients (r = - 0.606, P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: LADA patients with high-titer GADA express lower levels of T-cell transcription factors, including the Treg transcription factor FOXP3, which may contribute to differences in the clinical profile compared to LADA patients with low-titer GADA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01159847.
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".