Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Physician-Scientist Development
    • Reviews
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Resource and Technical Advances
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Editorials
  • Perspectives
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Reviews
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
A composite immune signature parallels disease progression across T1D subjects
Cate Speake, Samuel O. Skinner, Dror Berel, Elizabeth Whalen, Matthew J. Dufort, William Chad Young, Jared M. Odegard, Anne M. Pesenacker, Frans K. Gorus, Eddie A. James, Megan K. Levings, Peter S. Linsley, Eitan M. Akirav, Alberto Pugliese, Martin J. Hessner, Gerald T. Nepom, Raphael Gottardo, S. Alice Long
Cate Speake, Samuel O. Skinner, Dror Berel, Elizabeth Whalen, Matthew J. Dufort, William Chad Young, Jared M. Odegard, Anne M. Pesenacker, Frans K. Gorus, Eddie A. James, Megan K. Levings, Peter S. Linsley, Eitan M. Akirav, Alberto Pugliese, Martin J. Hessner, Gerald T. Nepom, Raphael Gottardo, S. Alice Long
View: Text | PDF
Research Article

A composite immune signature parallels disease progression across T1D subjects

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

At diagnosis, most people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) produce measurable levels of endogenous insulin, but the rate at which insulin secretion declines is heterogeneous. To explain this heterogeneity, we sought to identify a composite signature predictive of insulin secretion, using a collaborative assay evaluation and analysis pipeline that incorporated multiple cellular and serum measures reflecting β cell health and immune system activity. The ability to predict decline in insulin secretion would be useful for patient stratification for clinical trial enrollment or therapeutic selection. Analytes from 12 qualified assays were measured in shared samples from subjects newly diagnosed with T1D. We developed a computational tool (DIFAcTO, Data Integration Flexible to Account for different Types of data and Outcomes) to identify a composite panel associated with decline in insulin secretion over 2 years following diagnosis. DIFAcTO uses multiple filtering steps to reduce data dimensionality, incorporates error estimation techniques including cross-validation and sensitivity analysis, and is flexible to assay type, clinical outcome, and disease setting. Using this novel analytical tool, we identified a panel of immune markers that, in combination, are highly associated with loss of insulin secretion. The methods used here represent a potentially novel process for identifying combined immune signatures that predict outcomes relevant for complex and heterogeneous diseases like T1D.

Authors

Cate Speake, Samuel O. Skinner, Dror Berel, Elizabeth Whalen, Matthew J. Dufort, William Chad Young, Jared M. Odegard, Anne M. Pesenacker, Frans K. Gorus, Eddie A. James, Megan K. Levings, Peter S. Linsley, Eitan M. Akirav, Alberto Pugliese, Martin J. Hessner, Gerald T. Nepom, Raphael Gottardo, S. Alice Long

×

Figure 4

Characteristics of analytes selected by tool.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
Characteristics of analytes selected by tool.
Sensitivity analysis shows...
Sensitivity analysis shows that, even with cross-validation implemented in LASSO, 5/17 analytes are not robust to different parameter settings within the tool. These 5, indicated in grayscale, are unlikely to be validated in an independent cohort. Each individual plot’s x and y axes represent settings used to run the analytical tool; the number of analytes per assay setting is on the x axis, and minimum correlation per cluster is on the y axis of each miniplot. Darkest coloring indicates that the analyte was selected by the tool using that combination of x and y settings. Lighter coloring indicates that another analyte in that same cluster was selected by the tool. Light gray indicates that this analyte was not selected using that combination of x and y settings. Each miniplot is labeled by analyte and the assay from which it was originally measured. “Affy” indicates the transcriptional response to T1D serum assay as this is conducted on the Affymetrix platform.

Copyright © 2026 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts