Role of CD44 and Hyaluronan in Neutrophil Recruitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lymphocyte CD44 interactions with hyaluronan localized on the endothelium have been demonstrated to mediate rolling and regulate lymphocyte entry into sites of chronic inflammation. Because neutrophils also express CD44, we investigated the role of CD44 and hyaluronan in the multistep process of neutrophil recruitment. CD44(-/-) and wild-type control mice were intrascrotally injected with the neutrophil-activating chemokine, MIP-2, and leukocyte kinetics in the cremasteric microcirculation were investigated 4 h subsequently using intravital microscopy. Neither the rolling flux nor the rolling velocities were decreased in CD44(-/-) mice relative to wild-type mice. In vitro, neutrophils did not roll on the CD44 ligand hyaluronan, consistent with the in vivo data that CD44/hyaluronan did not mediate rolling. However, the number of adherent leukocytes in the venule was decreased by 65% in CD44(-/-) mice compared with wild-type mice. Leukocyte emigration was also greatly decreased in the CD44(-/-) mice. The same decrease in adhesion and emigration was observed in the wild-type mice given hyaluronidase. Histology revealed neutrophils as being the dominant infiltrating population. We generated chimeric mice that express CD44 either on their leukocytes or on their endothelium and found that CD44 on both the endothelium and neutrophils was important for optimal leukocyte recruitment into tissues. Of those neutrophils that emigrated in wild-type and CD44(-/-) mice, there was no impairment in migration through the interstitium. This study suggests that CD44 can mediate some neutrophil adhesion and emigration, but does not appear to affect subsequent migration within tissues.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".