MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1527965920 · doi:10.1096/fj.02-0908fje

Allergic humans are hypo‐responsive to CXCR3 chemokines in a Th1 immunity‐promoting loop

2003· article· en· W1527965920 on OpenAlexafffund
Darren Campbell, Venu Gangur, F. Estelle R. Simons, Kent T. HayGlass

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemokine receptors and signaling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCXCR3ImmunologyChemokineCXCL10Peripheral blood mononuclear cellAllergic responseT cellChemistryBiologyChemokine receptorImmune systemImmunoglobulin EIn vitroBiochemistryAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CXCR3 binding chemokine CXCL10 (IP-10) markedly enhances antigen-specific Th1 recall responses in healthy humans, suggesting a role for this pathway in maintenance of clinical tolerance to environmental allergens as well as a potential therapeutic role for CXCR3 ligands in re-balancing the Th2-dominated responses that underlie generation and maintenance of allergic disorders. Here, we investigated the capacity of CXCR3 ligands to modulate allergen-driven IFNgamma production by healthy and allergic individuals characterized by Th1 and Th2 immunity-dominated allergen specific responses, respectively. Exogenous CXCR3 ligands up-regulated antigen-dependent IFNgamma production from healthy individuals' peripheral blood mononuclear cells up to 120-fold, a response neutralized by anti-CXCR3 treatment and not emulated by CCR5 ligands. In contrast, allergic individuals were strikingly hypo-responsive to CXCR3 ligands (P=0.0004). Chemokine-enhanced IFNgamma production correlated with T cell CXCR3 expression (r=0.736, P=0.0001) in vivo and was independent of Th2 cytokine levels. These findings demonstrate that CXCR3-ligation preferentially augments ongoing Th1 over Th2 responses and suggest that reduced capacity of allergic individuals to respond to CXCR3 ligands promotes the maintenance of human allergic disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations85
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicChemokine receptors and signalingFrench-language works237,207