MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Colonic MUC2 Mucin Is Stabilized By FCGBP To Resist <i>Salmonella Enterica</i> Invasion In Goblet Cells

2022· article· en· W4280565917 on OpenAlexafffund
Hayley Gorman, France Moreau, Elise Beaupré, Kris Chadee

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMucinMucin 2MucusGoblet cellSalmonella entericaBiologyMicrobiologyCell biologyChemistryEpitheliumSalmonellaGene expressionBiochemistryBacteriaGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MUC2 mucin produced by goblet cells form the colonic mucus bilayer as the first line of innate defense against pathogen invasion by forming a physical barrier between the lumen and the underlying single layer of mucosal epithelial cells. Goblet cells also produce a variety of proteins that are associated with the mucus layer. Of these proteins, FCGBP is of significant interest due to its structural similarities to MUC2 mucin with unknown functions. In this study, we elucidated the putative functions of FCGBP embedded in MUC2 mucin in response to Salmonella enterica adherence and invasion in human colonic goblet cells. We hypothesis that FCGBP is coordinately produced with MUC2 mucin to play an integral role in forming the protective mucus layer in innate host defense. The aims of the study are: 1) to determine if FCGBP alters the structural integrity of the mucus layer and 2) to quantify structural alterations of the mucus layer in S. enterica adherence and invasion of goblet cells. To investigate whether FCGBP impaired mucus barrier functions, two cell types were investigated: Wildtype LS174T (WT) MUC2 mucus‐producing goblet cells and LS174T cells with a missense mutation in FCGBP (FCGBP MS). To determine if FCGBP MS led to loss in barrier function in the mucus layer, S. enterica adherence and invasion, and 0.2, 1, and 2 µM fluorescent bead penetrability inoculated on WT and FCGBP MS monolayers were quantified. MUC2 and FCGBP mRNA and protein expression induced by S. enterica in WT and FCGBP MS goblet cells were analysed by RT‐PCR and Western blotting. Cell killing by S. enterica was determined by LDH assay. S. enterica induced pro‐inflammatory cytokines responses were analyzed by RT‐PCR and human focus 15‐plex cytokine and chemokine array. FCGBP MS cells exhibited significant loss in MUC2 mucus barrier function as quantified by fluorescent beads penetrability further towards the epithelial cell surface temporally as compared to WT cells independent of bead size. Adherence of live S. enterica was significantly increased in FCGBP MS but not WT cells and induced robust MUC2 mRNA expression and mucus secretion in a time‐dependent manner. Similarly, S. enterica elicited high expression of pro‐inflammatory cytokine mRNA and protein release in FCGBP MS as compared to WT cells. FCGBP MS were readily invaded by S. enterica that resulted in increased cell death as compared to WT cells. More S. enterica adhered, invaded, and killed FCGBP MS as compared to WT cells. Fluorescent beads penetrated the mucus layer closer to the cell surface in FCGBP MS cells. In WT goblet cells, FCGBP and MUC2 were coordinately upregulated in response to S. enterica . The concurrent increase in pro‐inflammatory cytokine expression in FCGBP MS cells in response to S. enterica suggests that bacteria directly interacted with the cell surface suggesting an impaired protective mucus layer. The overall trend for increased bacterial invasion, pro‐inflammatory response, and cell death in FCGBP MS demonstrates that FCGBP was critical in providing structural integrity of the mucus layer.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicGlycosylation and Glycoproteins Research→French-language works237,207→