Availability of receptors for advanced glycation end-products (RAGE) influences differential transcriptome expression in mice exposed to chronic secondhand smoke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The receptor for advanced glycation end-products (RAGE) has a central function in orchestrating inflammatory responses in multiple disease states. RAGE is a transmembrane pattern recognition receptor with particular interest in lung disease due to its naturally abundant pulmonary expression. Our previous research demonstrated an inflammatory role for RAGE following acute exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS). However, chronic inflammatory mechanisms associated with RAGE remain unclear. In this study, we assessed transcriptional outcomes in mice exposed to chronic smoke in the context of RAGE expression. RAGE knockout (RKO) and wild type (WT) mice were exposed to SHS five times weekly via a nose-only delivery system (Scireq Scientific, Montreal, Canada) for six months and compared to mice exposed to room air (RA) only. Total lung RNA was isolated using the Direct-zol RNA MiniPrep kit (Zymo Research, Irvine, CA) and mRNA was purified using poly-T oligo-attached magnetic beads. Synthesis of cDNA, library construction, and sequencing was performed using standard approaches. We specifically compared the phenotypic and environmental conditions from WT+RA, WT+SHS, and RKO+SHS mice. Preprocessing and analysis of RNA-sequencing gene expression data included read trimming, mapping and quantifying the reads to transcripts, and calculating significant differentially expressed genes. The results of these analyses were summarized and compared via Venn diagrams, volcano plots, and functional gene cluster enrichment analysis. Notable gene clusters were specific to cytoskeletal elements, inflammatory signaling, and ciliogenesis. Finally, gene ontologies (GO) demonstrated significant biological pathways that were differentially impacted by the presence of RAGE. These data collectively identify several opportunities to further dissect RAGE signaling in the context of SHS exposure and foreshadow possible therapeutic modalities. This work was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH 1R15-HL152257). This is the full abstract presented at the American Physiology Summit 2024 meeting and is only available in HTML format. There are no additional versions or additional content available for this abstract. Physiology was not involved in the peer review process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".