Hair follicle gene expression profiling in the SubPopulations and InteRmediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcriptomic analysis is common in large cohort studies but is generally restricted to cells in blood, which limits inferences about organs of interest, and direct organ sampling is mostly infeasible in large cohorts. New techniques for RNA-seq from noninvasive biosamples may provide the opportunity to profile transcriptomes of additional tissues for more organ-relevant insights at scale. We investigated the feasibility and utility of hair follicle gene expression profiling in a multi-center study of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Bulk RNA-seq was performed on hair follicles collected in the SubPopulations and InteRmediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS), a multi-center longitudinal study of COPD (n = 97). The resulting hair follicle gene expression data were characterized and compared both to gene expression in whole blood and bronchial epithelium previously measured in SPIROMICS and to Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project tissue gene expression by principal component analysis and single-sample gene enrichment analysis, used to estimate hair follicle cell type proportions, and tested for association with disease-relevant lung phenotypes. eQTL discovery was also performed and colocalization with a genome-wide association study for lung function was tested. RESULTS: Hair follicles reliably produced transcriptomic data of sufficient quality and number for cell type composition, which revealed mostly epithelial and fibroblast cells. Comparison to other tissues previously profiled in SPIROMICS and GTEx project demonstrated transcriptomes from hair follicles were much more similar to those from lung parenchyma than blood. Combining these data with rich clinical, imaging, and genomic profiling in SPIROMICS, we found that they provided an attractive approach for discovery of associations with complex lung phenotypes, particularly of the airways. Finally, we investigated hair follicle genetic architecture through expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) discovery and demonstrated better colocalization with lung-related genetic associations than blood. CONCLUSION: Here, we demonstrated that RNA-seq applied to hair follicle transcriptomic profiling can be scaled up successfully in a multi-center study to yield inferences not available from blood transcriptomics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".