MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1574393433 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.178.2.1048

Distinct NKT Cell Subsets Are Induced by Different <i>Chlamydia</i> Species Leading to Differential Adaptive Immunity and Host Resistance to the Infections

2007· article· en· W1574393433 on OpenAlexafffund
Antony George Joyee, Hongyu Qiu, Shuhe Wang, Yijun Fan, Laura Bilenki, Xi Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Cell Function and Interaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRIKENManitoba Health Research Council
KeywordsNatural killer T cellBiologyChlamydiaImmunologyImmune systemAcquired immune systemCD8Chlamydophila pneumoniaeCytokineImmunityT cellIntracellular parasiteMicrobiologyChlamydiaceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the role of NKT cells in immunity to Chlamydia pneumoniae and Chlamydia muridarum infections using a combination of knockout mice and specific cellular activation approaches. The NKT-deficient mice showed exacerbated susceptibility to C. pneumoniae infection, but more resistance to C. muridarum infection. Activation of NKT reduced C. pneumoniae in vivo growth, but enhanced C. muridarum infection. Cellular analysis of invariant NKT cells revealed distinct cytokine patterns following C. pneumoniae and C. muridarum infections, i.e., predominant IFN-gamma in the former, while predominant IL-4 in the latter. The cytokine patterns of CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells matched those of NKT cells. Our data provide in vivo evidence for a functionally diverse role of NKT cells in immune response to two intracellular bacterial pathogens. These results suggest that distinct NKT subsets are induced by even biologically closely related pathogens, thus leading to differential adaptive immune response and infection outcomes.

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)0.000
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 score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations67
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicImmune Cell Function and InteractionFrench-language works237,207