A One Health Approach to Simple Liquid Sample Handling for Respiratory Based -Omics Analysis; Tracheal Wash and Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Airway inflammation is highly prevalent in horses, with the majority of non-infectious cases being defined as equine asthma. Currently, cytological analysis of airway derived samples is the principal method of assessing lower airway inflammation. Samples can be obtained by tracheal wash (TW) or by lavage of the lower respiratory tract (bronchoalveolar lavage fluid; BALF). Although BALF cytology carries significant diagnostic advantages over TW cytology, sample acquisition is invasive, making it prohibitive for routine and sequential-screening of airway health. The aim of this study was to establish a robust protocol to isolate macrophages, protein and RNA for molecular characterisation of TW samples and demonstrate the applicability of sample handling to rodent and human pediatric bronchoalveolar lavage fluid isolates. TW samples provided a good quality and yield of both RNA and protein for downstream transcriptomic/proteomic analyses. The sample handling methodologies were successfully applicable to BALF for rodent and human research. TW samples represent a rich source of airway cells, and molecular analysis to facilitate and study airway inflammation, based on both transcriptomic and proteomic analysis. This study provides a necessary methodological platform for future transcriptomic and/or proteomic studies on equine lower respiratory tract secretions and BALF samples from humans and mice.
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 | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".