Eosinophilopoiesis in A Murine Model of Allergic Airway Eosinophilia: Involvement of Bone Marrow IL-5 and IL-5 Receptor α
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The airway inflammation in asthma is dominated by eosinophils. The aim of this study was to elucidate the contribution of newly produced eosinophils in airway allergic inflammation and to determine mechanisms of any enhanced eosinophilopoiesis. OVA-sensitized BALB/c mice were repeatedly exposed to allergen via airway route. Newly produced cells were identified using a thymidine analog, 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine, which is incorporated into DNA during mitosis. Identification of IL-5-producing cells in the bone marrow was performed using FACS. Bone marrow CD3+ cells were enriched to evaluate IL-5-protein release in vitro. Anti-IL-5-treatment (TRFK-5) was given either systemically or directly to the airways. IL-5R-bearing cells were localized by immunocytochemistry. Repeated airway allergen exposure caused prominent airway eosinophilia after three to five exposures, and increased the number of immature eosinophils in the bone marrow. Up to 78% of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) granulocytes were 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine positive. After three allergen exposures, both CD3+ and non-CD3 cells acquired from the bone marrow expressed and released IL-5-protein. Anti-IL-5 given i.p. inhibited both bone marrow and airway eosinophilia. Intranasal administration of anti-IL-5 also reduced BAL eosinophilia, partly via local effects in the airways. Bone marrow cells, but not BAL eosinophils, displayed stainable amounts of the IL-5R alpha-chain. We conclude that the bone marrow is activated by airway allergen exposure, and that newly produced eosinophils contribute to a substantial degree to the airway eosinophilia induced by allergen. Airway allergen exposure increases the number of cells expressing IL-5-protein in the bone marrow. The bone marrow, as well as the lung, are possible targets for anti-IL-5-treatment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".