Comparison of the broncoalveolar lavage fluid proteomics between foals and adult horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neonates have different cellular composition in their bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) when compared to foals and adult horses; however, little is known about the non-cellular components of BALF. The objective of this study was to determine the proteomic composition of BALF in neonatal horses and to compare it to that of foals and adult horses. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples of seven neonates (< 1 week age), four 5 to 7-week-old foals, and six adult horses were collected. Quantitative proteomics of the fluid was performed using tandem mass tag labeling followed by high resolution liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry and protein relative abundances were compared between groups using exact text. A total of 704 proteins were identified with gene ontology terms and were classified. Of these, 332 proteins were related to the immune system in neonates, foals, and adult horses. The most frequent molecular functions identified were binding and catalytic activity and the most common biological processes were cellular process, metabolic process, and biological regulation. There was a significant difference in the proteome of neonates when compared to foals and to adult horses. Neonates had less relative expression (FDR < 0.01) of many immune-related proteins, including immunoglobulins, proteins involved in the complement cascade, ferritin, BPI fold-containing family B member 1, and macrophage receptor MARCO. This is the first report of equine neonate BALF proteomics and reveals differential abundance of proteins when compared to BALF from adult horses. The lower relative abundance of immune-related proteins in neonates could contribute to their susceptibility to pulmonary infections.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".