CFTR does not affect the cellular redox properties of CF15/JME airway cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the potential role of CFTR in controlling redox properties in human CF airway epithelia (CF15/JME) and CFTR‐corrected cells. CFTR correction was verified in Ussing chambers. Redox properties of cytosol, mitochondria (mito), endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and the outside of the cell surface were analyzed in cells expressing organelle‐targeted, redox‐sensitive GFPs (RoGFP) by ratiometric imaging microscopy. Redox potential (V redox ) was most reduced in the cytosol (−305 mV) and somewhat less in mito (−285 mV). The ER and the cell surface were both more oxidized than − 180 mV. There were no differences in V redox in any compartment between CF and CFTR‐corrected cells. 100 μM H 2 O 2 oxidized cytosolic V redox to −220 mV and mito to −200 mV, while RoGFP in the ER and at the cell surface remained fully oxidized. Following H 2 O 2 washout, mito and cytosol recovered their V redox to control. 0.5 mM DTT reduced the cell surface to −300 mV; cytosol, mito and ER were reduced to −350 mV. Following DTT washout, the cells reoxidized the cell surface to −260 mV, while the ER, cytosol and mito reoxidized to control levels. There were no differences between CF and CFTR‐corrected cells in the rates of recoveries for any compartment. Thus, CF and CFTR‐corrected cells have similar V redox and redox regulatory properties in the cytosol, mito, ER and the cell surface. CFTR appears not to be involved in redox regulation of airway epithelia. Oxidative stress as described for the airways of CF patients might arise from other sources, e.g., neutrophils and/or pathogens. Supported by NIH, CFF, CFRI
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".