MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1960133397 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.177.6.4002

Role of <i>N</i> -Acetylglucosamine within Core Lipopolysaccharide of Several Species of Gram-Negative Bacteria in Targeting the DC-SIGN (CD209)

2006· article· en· W1960133397 on OpenAlexaff
Pei Zhang, Scott Snyder, Peter Feng, Parastoo Azadi, Shusheng Zhang, Silvia Bulgheresi, Kenneth E. Sanderson, Johnny J. He, John D. Klena, Tie Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsShell (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsLipopolysaccharideGramGram-negative bacteriaSign (mathematics)BacteriaMicrobiologyCore (optical fiber)BiologyChemistryImmunologyBiochemistryEscherichia coliMathematicsComputer scienceGeneticsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our recent studies have shown that the dendritic cell-specific ICAM nonintegrin CD209 (DC-SIGN) specifically binds to the core LPS of Escherichia coli K12 (E. coli), promoting bacterial adherence and phagocytosis. In this current study, we attempted to map the sites within the core LPS that are directly involved in LPS-DC-SIGN interaction. We took advantage of four sets of well-defined core LPS mutants, which are derived from E. coli, Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Haemophilus ducreyi and determined interaction of each of these four sets with DC-SIGN. Our results demonstrated that N-acetylglucosamine (GlcNAc) sugar residues within the core LPS in these bacteria play an essential role in targeting the DC-SIGN receptor. Our results also imply that DC-SIGN is an innate immune receptor and the interaction of bacterial core LPS and DC-SIGN may represent a primeval interaction between Gram-negative bacteria and host phagocytic cells.

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)0.002
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations83
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207