Whole blood vs PBMC: compartmental differences in gene expression profiling exemplified in asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Blood has proven to be a useful resource for molecular analysis in numerous biomedical studies, with peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and whole blood being the major specimen types. However, comparative analyses between these two major compartments (PBMCs and whole blood) are few and far between. In this study, we compared gene expression profiles of PBMCs and whole blood samples obtained from research subjects with or without mild allergic asthma. Methods Whole blood (PAXgene) and PBMC samples were obtained from 5 mild allergic asthmatics and 5 healthy controls. RNA from both sample types was measured for expression of 730 immune-related genes using the NanoString nCounter platform. Results We identified 64 uniquely expressed transcripts in whole blood that reflected a variety of innate, humoral, and adaptive immune processes, and 13 uniquely expressed transcripts in PBMCs which were representative of T-cell and monocyte-mediated processes. Furthermore, analysis of mild allergic asthmatics versus non-asthmatics revealed 47 differentially expressed transcripts in whole blood compared to 1 differentially expressed transcript in PBMCs (FDR < 0.25). Finally, through simultaneous measurement of PBMC proteins on the nCounter assay, we identified CD28 and OX40 ( TNFRSF4 ), both of which are critical co-stimulatory molecules during T-cell activation, as significantly upregulated in asthmatics. Conclusions Whole blood RNA preserved in PAXgene tubes is excellent for producing gene expression data with minimal variability and good sensitivity, suggesting its utility in multi-centre studies requiring measurement of blood gene expression.
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".