MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971732539 · doi:10.1086/425079

Toll‐Like Receptor (TLR)–3, but Not TLR4, Agonist Protects against Genital Herpes Infection in the Absence of Inflammation Seen with CpG DNA

2004· article· en· W1971732539 on OpenAlexaff
Ali A. Ashkar, Xiao-Dan Yao, Navkiran Gill, Dusan Sajic, Amy Patrick, Kenneth L. Rosenthal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Response and Inflammation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHealth Sciences CentreMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTLR9TLR3TLR4CpG OligodeoxynucleotideTLR7Toll-like receptorImmunologyTLR2InflammationBiologyInnate immune systemCpG siteVirologyHerpes simplex virusVirusImmune systemGene expressionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We previously demonstrated that delivery of CpG oligodeoxynucleotide (ODN) to vaginal mucosa induced an innate mucosal antiviral state that protected against intravaginal challenge with herpes simplex virus (HSV)-2. We report that mucosal, but not systemic, delivery of ligands for Toll-like receptor (TLR)-3, but not TLR4, induced protection against genital HSV-2 challenge that was not accompanied by the local inflammation and splenomegaly seen after treatment with CpG ODN. Surprisingly, TLR4 messenger (m) RNA expression was shown to be higher than that of TLR3 or TLR9 in murine genital mucosa. Similarly, murine RAW264.7 cells were shown to express more mRNA for TLR4 than TLR3 or TLR9, yet treatment of these cells with double-stranded RNA provided greater protection than lipopolysaccharide or CpG ODN. These results indicate that TLR3 ligand induces a more potent antiviral response than TLR4 and TLR9 ligands and may be a safer means of protecting against sexually transmitted viral infections.

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 score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations136
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicImmune Response and InflammationFrench-language works237,207