MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391873697 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwad061.271

A271 EFFECT OF ANTI-TNF AGENTS ON DNA METHYLATION IN PERIPHERAL BLOOD OF PATIENTS WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE

2024· article· en· W4391873697 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffery M. Venner, Julia M. Francis, Jillian Rumore, Michael Sargent, Meaghan J. Jones, Çharles N. Bernstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammatory Bowel Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeripheral bloodInflammatory bowel diseaseMedicineTumor necrosis factor alphaPeripheralGastroenterologyDiseaseDNA methylationInflammationMethylationInternal medicineImmunologyDNAChemistryBiochemistryGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Despite the success and ongoing use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), there are no predictors of response to therapy. While much research has gone into understanding genetic risks for IBD, less work has been done exploring epigenetic associations with treatment. Hence, we wondered whether epigenetic changes were associated with failure of TNFi in IBD. Aims Describe the association of TNFi response with DNA methylation in patients with IBD. Methods Participants ≥18 years with IBD (N=169) were selected from the Inflammation, Microbiome, and Alimentation: Gastro-Intestinal and Neuropsychiatric Effects (IMAGINE) Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) Network. At enrollment participants completed a questionnaire that included their disease diagnosis, therapy, smoking history, and disease activity using the validated IBD Symptom Inventory (IBDSI). Patients provided whole blood samples that were processed for and run on Illumina DNA methylation arrays. Results The 169 patients were in three treatment groups: TNFi naïve (N=98, never exposed to an anti-TNF agent), TNFi responder (N=32, inactive disease on anti-TNF agent), and TNFi nonresponder (N=39, active disease not on any biologic at time of enrollment). The mean symptom score (SIBDSI) was different across the three groups (pampersand:003C0.001): TNFi nonresponders having a higher SIBDSI (24 ± 6.1) than the TNFi naïve (9.1 ± 5.5) or responder (8.3 ± 4.3) treatment groups. Relative proportions of leukocyte populations were estimated using DNA methylation. CD4 and CD8 T cell and B cell counts were higher (pampersand:003C0.05) in the nonresponders and responders versus TNFi naïve group. Neutrophil counts were lower (pampersand:003C0.05) in the TNFi nonresponders and responders compared to the TNFi naïve group (Figure 1). There was a trend towards increased epigenetic estimates of age acceleration (pampersand:003E0.05) in nonresponders versus responders and TNFi naïve patients, likely driven by disease activity (data not shown). Epigenome-wide analysis of the three groups revealed 16 CpGs for responder versus naïve (e.g. CDK5 regulatory subunit-associated protein 1-like 1 (CDKAL1), and two CpGs for nonresponders versus responders (Table 1). This includes a CpG for guanine nucleotide-binding protein subunit gamma-2 (GNG2) that was shared between the two comparisons. Conclusions Exposure to TNFi is associated with changes in peripheral leukocyte populations independent of response to treatment, indicating a TNFi effect. This implies that anti-TNF treatment is having some effect on patients even if there is clinical nonresponse. Differentially expressed CpGs implicates possible markers of response to treatment, particularly CDKAL1, a gene that has been associated with TNFi response in psoriasis. Funding Agencies Guts and Roses Charity

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)0.001
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicInflammatory Bowel Disease→French-language works237,207→