MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309246513 · doi:10.1111/cea.14251

Progenitor cell‐derived basophils: A novel barcoded passive degranulation assay in allergic diseases

2022· article· en· W4309246513 on OpenAlexafffund
Jiakai Wu, Rajia Bahri, Marina Tsoumani, Aida Semic‐Jusufagic, Clare Murray, Adnan Čustović, George V. Guibas, Miriam Bennett, Ran Wang, Gail M. Gauvreau, Ruth P. Cusack, E. N. Clare Mills, Silvia Bulfone‐Paus, Angela Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical & Experimental Allergy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersManchester Biomedical Research CentreMedical Research Council CanadaMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsCD63ImmunologyAllergenBasophil activationDegranulationBasophilProgenitor cellMedicineAllergySensitizationImmunoglobulin EFlow cytometryArea under the curveProvocation testAntibodyStem cellPharmacologyInternal medicineChemistryBiologyReceptorPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Effector cells assays provide an overall measure of responsiveness to allergen, but the lack of reliable and high‐throughput assays limits the clinical utility. We aimed to develop a high‐throughput basophil activation test based on human progenitor cell‐derived basophils (PCB) and investigate the role of PCB activation test (PCBAT) in allergic diseases. Methods Progenitor cell‐derived basophils were differentiated from CD34+ progenitor cells and sensitized with sera from subjects sensitized to cat, peanut or atopic controls. Sensitized PCBs were stimulated with increasing concentrations of the corresponding allergens in vitro. Degranulation was assessed by measuring CD63 expression using flow cytometry. The correlations between PCBAT and clinical allergy were assessed. Results Following passive sensitization of the mature PCBs with serum and allergen stimulation, an allergen specific dose‐dependent increase in CD63 expression was observed. Sera from subjects sensitized to cat (n = 35, of which 17 subjects had clinical reactivity quantified using inhaled allergen challenge), peanut allergic (n = 30, of which 15 subjects had clinical reactivity validated using double blind, placebo controlled food challenges [DBPCFC]), peanut‐sensitized but tolerant subjects (n = 5) were used to sensitize PCBs. PCBAT area under the curve (AUC) correlated with sIgE (r2 = .49, p = .001) in subjects sensitized to cat (sIgE ≥ 0.35KU/L). The provocation concentration of inhaled cat allergen (PC20) correlated with PCBAT AUC (r2 = .33, p = .016). In subjects sensitized to peanut, PCBAT AUC was highly correlated with sIgE to Ara h 2 (r2 = .59, p < .0001). Peanut threshold cumulative dose during DBPCFC was negatively correlated with PCBAT AUC (r2 = .57, p = .001) and IgE to Ara h1 (r2 = .55, p = .007), but not with sIgE to whole peanut or Ara h2. All peanut‐sensitized but tolerant subjects showed no reaction to peanut on PCBAT. Conclusion Progenitor cell‐derived basophils activation test is a high‐throughput assay, which correlates with clinical allergy and may confer a powerful alternative tool in allergy testing.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical & Experimental AllergySame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207