Adjuvant activity of pollen grains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The induction of an immune response to a biologically inert soluble protein requires an adjuvant. Here we have examined whether intact grains of pollen display such adjuvant effect, accounting for the immunogenic activity of pollen protein allergens that are devoid of intrinsic pro-inflammatory/adjuvant property. METHODS: Human monocyte-derived dendritic cells (DCs) were cultured with intact grains of grass or ragweed pollen for 48 h. The state of DCs maturation was analyzed by FACS and their cytokine production by ELISA. T cell priming activity of DCs was examined in co-cultures with naïve cord blood-derived CD4(+) T cells. RESULTS: Contact with grains of pollen induced a distinct maturation program in immature DCs. Pollen up-regulated the expression of CD54, CD80, CD83, CD86, HLA-DR, CCR7, and CD40 on DCs. Moreover, CCR5 expression was up-regulated by pollen but suppressed by LPS. In sharp contrast to LPS-stimulated DCs, pollen-treated DCs did not produce cytokines [interleukin (IL)-10, IL-12, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha] but retained the ability to secrete high levels of these cytokines upon simulation with soluble CD40 ligand and interferon (IFN)-gamma. Pollen-primed DCs strongly stimulated the proliferation of allogeneic naïve CD4(+) T cells and promoted their development into effector cells producing high levels of IL-5 and IL-13 together with moderate levels of IFN-gamma and IL-4. CONCLUSION: Intact grains of pollen induce activation and maturation of DCs in vitro. Similar mechanisms may be effective in vivo, suggesting that pollen grain is not only an allergen carrier but also acts as an adjuvant in the induction phase of the allergic immune response.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".