MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1934796349 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.177.1.22

Cutting Edge: STAT1 and T-bet Play Distinct Roles in Determining Outcome of Visceral Leishmaniasis Caused by <i>Leishmania donovani</i>

2006· article· en· W1934796349 on OpenAlexaff
Lucia E. Rosas, Heidi Snider, Joseph Barbi, Anjali A. Satoskar, Geanncarlo Lugo‐Villarino, Tracy L. Keiser, Tracy L. Papenfuss, Joan E. Durbin, Danuta Radzioch, Laurie H. Glimcher, Abhay R. Satoskar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicResearch on Leishmaniasis Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal General Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsSTAT1Leishmania donovaniVisceral leishmaniasisBiologyImmunologyAdoptive cell transferLeishmaniasisLeishmaniaInflammationImmune systemT cellParasite hostingInterferon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T-bet and STAT1 regulate IFN-gamma gene transcription in CD4+ T cells, which mediate protection against Leishmania. Here we show that T-bet and STAT1 are required for the induction of an efficient Th1 response during Leishmania donovani infection, but they play distinct roles in determining disease outcome. Both STAT1(-/-) and T-bet(-/-) mice failed to mount a Th1 response, but STAT1(-/-) mice were highly resistant to L. donovani and developed less immunopathology, whereas T-bet(-/-) mice were highly susceptible and eventually developed liver inflammation. Adoptive cell transfer studies showed that RAG2(-/-) recipients receiving STAT1(+/+) or STAT1(-/-) T cells developed comparable liver pathology, but those receiving STAT1(-/-) T cells were significantly more susceptible to infection. These unexpected findings reveal distinct roles for T-bet and STAT1 in mediating host immunity and liver pathology during visceral leishmaniasis.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations52
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicResearch on Leishmaniasis StudiesFrench-language works237,207