MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

020. IDENTIFICATION OF TARGET ANTIGENS FOR ANTI-ENDOTHELIAL CELL ANTIBODIES IN PATIENTS WITH TAKAYASU’S ARTERITIS USING PROTEOMICS

2019· article· en· W2930092561 on OpenAlexaff
Rie Karasawa, Paul A. Monach, Toshiko Sato, Megumi Tanaka, David Cuthbertson, Simon Carette, Nader Khalidi, Curry L. Koening, Carol A. Langford, Carol A. McAlear, Larry W. Moreland, Christian Pagnoux, Philip Seo, Antoine G. Sreih, Kenneth J. Warrington, Steven R. Ytterberg, Kazuo Yudoh, James N. Jarvis, Peter A. Merkel

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVasculitis and related conditions
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph's HospitalMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTakayasu arteritisAntigenArteritisAntibodyIdentification (biology)ProteomicsImmunologyTakayasu's arteritisPathologyVasculitisDiseaseBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The mechanisms of the blood vessel injury in Takayasu’s arteritis (TAK), a systemic vasculitis characterized by inflammation of large- and medium-sized arteries, remains unknown. TAK shares common clinical and histologic findings with giant cell arteritis (GCA), another form of large- vessel vasculitis. Anti-endothelial cell antibodies (AECA) are detected frequently in rheumatic diseases such as vasculitis. We hypothesized that autoimmunity to blood vessel antigens plays a role in the pathology of TAK and, therefore, used proteomics to discover target antigens for AECA in TAK. Methods: We studied serum samples from 26 patients with TAK, 41 patients with GCA, and 17 healthy controls. We separated proteins extracted from human aortic endothelial cells (HAEC) by two- dimensional electrophoresis and transferred them onto membranes. We performed western blotting using serum from patients with TAK and healthy donors to detect antigens that were positive in TAK but not in healthy donors. We next identified the detected proteins by peptide mass finger-printing. IgG antibodies bound to antigens were detected using ELISA. The differences of serum autoantibody levels and the frequency of the autoantibodies between the groups were compared by Mann-Whitney U test and by Fisher’s exact test, respectively. Results: We successfully identified 78 proteins from 23 protein spots that were candidate targets of AECA in TAK. Antibodies appeared to target proteins with specific functions, e.g., redox-related proteins (29%), apoptosis-related proteins (28%), muscle-related proteins (23%), ATP-related proteins (19%), calcium-related proteins (19%), and coagulation- or fibrinolysis- related proteins (8%). One of the 78 proteins identified was stress-induced-phosphoprotein 1 (STIP1), a co-chaperone protein. The figure shows the mean OD±SD of IgG autoantibodies against STIP1 (anti- STIP1) was 0.177±0.125, 0.093±0.122 and 0.094±0.057 in TAK, GCA and sex- and age-matched healthy donors, respectively. There were statistically significant increased levels of anti-STIP in TAK compared with GCA (P < 0.001) and healthy donors (P < 0.005). Anti-STIP1 were detected in 27% of patients with TAK, in 5% of patients with GCA and in 6% of healthy donors. More patients with TAK had anti- STIP1 than did patients with GCA (P = 0.022). Conclusion: IgG autoantibodies to proteins in the proteome of HAEC are present in the serum of patients with TAK, implying that these autoantibodies may play a pathophysiologic role in the inflammation of blood vessels that is a key feature of TAK. Disclosures: This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP21591273. This work was also supported by R01-AR-060604 from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders. The Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium (VCRC) (U54 AR057319) is part of the Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network (RDCRN), an initiative of the Office of Rare Diseases Research (ORDR), National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS). The VCRC is funded through collaboration between NCATS, and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and has received funding from the National Center for Research Resources (U54 RR019497).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicVasculitis and related conditionsFrench-language works237,207