MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

POS1109 PUTATIVE ROLE OF THE HISTIDINE AND TRYPTOPHAN BIOCHEMICAL PATHWAYS IN THE MODE OF ACTION OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS

2023· article· en· W4379798883 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thierry Sornasse, L. LI, Shuquan Zhao, X. Wang, F. Cai, Yufang Bi, In Ho Song, Stephanie Wichuk, R. Lambert, Walter P. Maksymowych

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTryptophan and brain disorders
Canadian institutionsThe Metabolomics Innovation CentreUniversity of Alberta
FundersMedacCelgeneGilead SciencesChugai PharmaceuticalAmgenPfizerEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbSun PharmaBiogenGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsAnkylosing spondylitisMedicineMode of actionTryptophanSpondylitisPharmacologyImmunologyBiochemistryAmino acidChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Upadacitinib (UPA) 15 mg QD is efficacious in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) exhibiting inadequate responses to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs-IR).[1] Objectives We determined the impact of UPA on the global metabolome in these patients. Methods Baseline (BL), weeks 4, and 14 serum samples were obtained from a subset of patients enrolled in SELECT-AXIS1 (PBO, n = 59 out of 94; UPA, n = 59 out of 93). Patients met the modified New York AS criteria and had active disease at BL. Samples were processed using dansyl-12C-labeling kits or DmPA-12C-labeling kits for each chemical-group channel and analyzed by LC-MS–based metabolomics. Data analysis was performed using a commercial software and metabolite identification was done using a commercial reference database.[2] Tier 1 and 2 metabolites matched single compounds from a labeled metabolite library and a linked identity library, respectively. Tier 3 metabolites matched more than 1 compound. Differentially modulated metabolites (DMM) were identified using a mixed linear model measuring change from BL for each treatment group (selection criteria, absolute Log10 fold change ≥ 0.079, and false discovery rate ≤ 0.1). Pathway enrichment analyses were conducted using a dedicated software.[3] Relationships between metabolite level changes, and clinical changes were assessed by Pearson’s correlation. Results We detected a total of 8020 distinct metabolites (ie, ≥ 80% detectability across timepoints within each treatment group) across the global metabolome. From these 8020 metabolites, we identified 289 and 221 DMM at weeks 4 and 14 in the UPA group vs 32 and 89 in the PBO group, respectively. Most DMM in the UPA group (187 and 144 at weeks 4 and 14, respectively) belonged to the Tier 3 identification category, and 51 and 40 at weeks 4 and 14, respectively, belonged to the Tier 1 and 2 categories. Pathway enrichment suggests UPA affects the histidine and tryptophan biochemical pathways (Figure 1), consistent with increases in metabolites observed in the UPA group. Increases in histidine and tryptophan levels were significantly associated with an improvement in CRP levels and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score-CRP scores (P ≤.05). Increases in histidine levels were also associated with the improvement in MRI Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Spine indices. Conclusion This is the first comprehensive metabolome analysis of serum samples collected from patients with AS treated with UPA. Data highlight the promise of advanced metabolomics to elucidate therapeutic agent’s mode of action in AS. The putative effect of UPA on the tryptophan biochemical pathway is of particular interest because the tryptophan/kynurenine pathway is associated with chronic pain[4] and is perturbed toward the degradation of tryptophan in patients with AS.[5] We hypothesize that the increase in tryptophan and histidine may be related to the mode of action of UPA in NSAID-IR patients with AS. References [1]Van der Heijde D, et al. Lancet. 2019;394:2108. [2]Blackmore D, et al. Metabolomics. 2020;16:10. [3]Pang Z, et al. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49:W388. [4]Jovanovic F, et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21:6045. [5]Eryavuz Onmaz D, et al. Int Immunopharmacol. 2021;99:108018. Acknowledgements Medical writing assistance, funded by AbbVie, was provided by Steve Page, PhD, and Lamara D. Shrode, PhD, CMPP™, of JB Ashtin. Disclosure of Interests Thierry Sornasse Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Liang Li Shareholder of: Founder of Nova Medical Testing Inc. (NovaMT)., Consultant of: Meliomics Inc., Grant/research support from: Matching fund from NovaMT as part of a Mitacs PDF support and receives grant royalty payment from Bruker on a licensed QTOF Metabolomics Technology., Employee of: founder of Nova Medical Testing Inc. (NovaMT)., Shuang Zhao: None declared, Xiaohang Wang: None declared, Fang Cai Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yingtao Bi Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Stephanie Wichuk: None declared, Robert Lambert: None declared, Walter P Maksymowych Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTryptophan and brain disordersFrench-language works237,207