ArticleInflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.]2025
Causal genes identification of giant cell arteritis in CD4+ Memory t cells: an integration of multi-omics and expression quantitative trait locus analysis.
Article in Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.], 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- DDIT4 upregulation associates with gammadelta T Cells dysfunction in ART-suppressed people living with HIV-1.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Circulating Protein-Mediated Pathways in Basal Cell Carcinoma: Mendelian Randomization Reveals STAT3 and GUCA1A as Key Regulatory Hubs.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
- Uncovering the New Biology of Giant Cell Arteritis to Guide Therapeutic Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Multi-omics-driven biomarker discovery in autoimmune diseases: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiant cell arteritis (GCA) is a prevalent artery and is strongly correlated with age. The role of CD4+ Memory T cells in giant cell arteritis has not been elucidated.
methodThrough single-cell analysis, we focused on the CD4+ Memory T cells in giant cell arteritis. eQTL analysis and mendelian randomization analysis identified the significant genes which have a causal effect on giant cell arteritis risk. CD4+ Memory T cells were subsequently divided into gene-positive and gene-negative groups, then further single-cell analysis was conducted. Mendelian randomization of plasma proteins, blood-urine biomarkers and metabolites were also performed. Eventually, the PMA induced Jurkat cell lines were used for biological experiments to explore the specific functions of significant causal genes in CD4+ Memory T cells.
resultsSimilarity of CD4+ Memory T cells in GCA and old samples were explored. DDIT4 and ARHGAP15 were identified as significant risk genes via mendelian randomization. The CD4+ Memory T cells were then divided into DDIT4 ± or ARHGAP15 ± groups, and further single-cell analysis indicated the differences in aspects involving intercellular communication, functional pathways, protein activity, metabolism and drug sensitivity between positive and negative groups. In vitro experiments, including overexpression and knockdown, demonstrated that DDIT4 leading to a chronic, low-intensity inflammatory state in CD4+ Memory T cells, eventually promoting the development of GCA.
conclusionDDIT4 and ARHGAP15 have significant causal effects on giant cell arteritis risk. Specifically, DDIT4 exhibit pro-inflammatory effects on GCA via promotes chronic, low-intensity inflammatory in CD4+ Memory T cell.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.