Cigarette Smoke Differentially Affects Eosinophilia and Remodeling in a Model of House Dust Mite Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a similar prevalence of smoking is evident among patients with asthma and the general population, little is known about the impact of cigarette smoke on the immune inflammatory processes elicited by common environmental allergens. We investigated the impact of exposure to cigarette smoke on house dust mite (HDM)-induced allergic airway inflammation and its consequences for tissue remodeling and lung physiology in mice. BALB/c mice received intranasal HDMs daily, 5 days per week, for 3 weeks to establish chronic airway inflammation. Subsequently, mice were concurrently exposed to HDMs plus cigarette smoke, 5 days per week, for 2 weeks (HDMs + smoke). We observed significantly attenuated eosinophilia in the bronchoalveolar lavage of mice exposed to HDMs + smoke, compared with animals exposed only to HDMs. A similar activation of CD4 T cells and expression of IL-5, IL-13, and transforming growth factor-β was observed between HDM-treated and HDM + smoke-treated animals. Consistent with an effect on eosinophil trafficking, HDMs + smoke exposure attenuated the HDM-induced expression of eotaxin-1 and vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, whereas the survival of eosinophils and the numbers of blood eosinophils were not affected. Exposure to cigarette smoke also reduced the activation of B cells and the concentrations of serum IgE. Although the production of mucus decreased, collagen deposition significantly increased in animals exposed to HDMs + smoke, compared with animals exposed only to HDMs. Although airway resistance was unaffected, tissue resistance was significantly decreased in mice exposed to HDMs + smoke. Our findings demonstrate that cigarette smoke affects eosinophil migration without affecting airway resistance or modifying Th2 cell adaptive immunity in a murine model of HDM-induced asthma.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".