The Role of Mast Cells in Inflammatory Processes: Evidence for Nerve/Mast Cell Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the rat, there is considerable evidence of mast cell/nerve interaction both in the normal and infected intestine. Between 67 and 87% of all mast cells in the intestinal lamina propria of rats infected 22-35 days earlier with Nippostrongylus brasiliensis were touching nerves. These membrane contacts were between subepithelial mast cells and nonmyelinated nerves containing substance P, calcitonin gene-related peptide and neurone specific enolase. 2.5S nerve growth factor (NGF) has a significant enhancement effect on antigen-induced histamine release without addition of phosphatidylserine, and the in vivo administration of NGF to rats causes both connective tissue and mucosal mast cells to dramatically increase in number. All of these effects are both dose dependent and NGF specific, as evidenced by inhibition with anti-NGF. 2.5S NGF also causes in vitro increase of colonies in methylcellulose cultures of human peripheral blood. The effects of NGF in this system are synergistic with other T cell-derived growth factors and relatively specific for metachromatic cell growth. These observations support the conclusions that nerves and mast cells may constantly communicate and provide a structural and conceptual framework whereby the central nervous system may communicate with inflammatory events.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".