Mucosal Allergic Sensitization to Cockroach Allergens Is Dependent on Proteinase Activity and Proteinase-Activated Receptor-2 Activation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have shown that proteinase-activated receptor-2 (PAR(2)) activation in the airways leads to allergic sensitization to concomitantly inhaled Ags, thus implicating PAR(2) in the pathogenesis of asthma. Many aeroallergens with proteinase activity activate PAR(2). To study the role of PAR(2) in allergic sensitization to aeroallergens, we developed a murine model of mucosal sensitization to cockroach proteins. We hypothesized that PAR(2) activation in the airways by natural allergens with serine proteinase activity plays an important role in allergic sensitization. Cockroach extract (CE) was administered to BALB/c mice intranasally on five consecutive days (sensitization phase) and a week later for four more days (challenge phase). Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) and allergic airway inflammation were assessed after the last challenge. To study the role of PAR(2), mice were exposed intranasally to a receptor-blocking anti-PAR(2) Ab before each administration of CE during the sensitization phase. Mucosal exposure to CE induced eosinophilic airway inflammation, AHR, and cockroach-specific IgG1. Heat-inactivated or soybean trypsin inhibitor-treated CE failed to induce these effects, indicating that proteinase activity plays an important role. The use of an anti-PAR(2) blocking Ab during the sensitization phase completely inhibited airway inflammation and also decreased AHR and the production of cockroach-specific IgG1. PAR(2) activation by CE acts as an adjuvant for allergic sensitization even in the absence of functional TLR4. We conclude that CE induces PAR(2)-dependent allergic airway sensitization in a mouse model of allergic airway inflammation. PAR(2) activation may be a general mechanism used by aeroallergens to induce allergic sensitization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".