Circulating CD200 is increased in the secretory phase of women with endometriosis as is endometrial mRNA, and endometrial stromal cell CD200R1 is increased in spite of reduced mRNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM: Estrogen-dependent extrauterine implantation and growth of menstrual endometrial tissue affects roughly 10% of reproductive age women and depends on suppression of local innate immune defenses to prevent ectopic tissue rejection. Immunohistochemistry has shown the immune check-point inhibitor CD200 which can suppress rejection is expressed in eutopic endometrium and in ectopic deposits. Soluble CD200 accumulated in venules draining eutopic and ectopic endometrium of endometriosis cases in the secretory phase but not proliferative phase of the menstrual cycle, and should be increased in the circulation. METHOD OF STUDY: Sera from endometriosis and non-endometriosis controls were tested by ELISA for CD200. Endometrial CD200, CD200R1 and CD200R2 mRNA in eutopic was quantified by RT-PCR and localized by in situ hybridization. CD200R1 protein was quantified by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Secretory phase serum CD200 was elevated in women with endometriosis compared to controls. Serum CD200 correlated with matched endometrial CD200 mRNA levels. Expression of mRNA for CD200R1 which signals immune suppression was decreased whereas mRNA for the CD200R2 activating receptor was increased. In situ staining of CD200R1 and CD200R2 mRNA showed both receptors were expressed and the fraction of CD200R that is CD200R1 was reduced in secretory and menstrual phase endometriosis endometrium consistent with the RT-PCR result. By contrast, CD200R1 protein and CD200R1 fraction of total CD200R protein were increased in endometriosis. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to suppress circulating CD200 levels in the secretory phase had an 87% specificity and 90% sensitivity for endometriosis. CD200 and increased CD200R1 expression may facilitate development of ectopic deposits by suppressing rejection mechanisms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".