Identification of Loci Controlling Restriction of Parasite Growth in Experimental Taenia crassiceps Cysticercosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human neurocysticercosis (NC) caused by Taenia solium is a parasitic disease of the central nervous system that is endemic in many developing countries. In this study, a genetic approach using the murine intraperitoneal cysticercosis caused by the related cestode Taenia crassiceps was employed to identify host factors that regulate the establishment and proliferation of the parasite. A/J mice are permissive to T. crassiceps infection while C57BL/6J mice (B6) are comparatively restrictive, with a 10-fold difference in numbers of peritoneal cysticerci recovered 30 days after infection. The genetic basis of this inter-strain difference was explored using 34 AcB/BcA recombinant congenic strains derived from A/J and B6 progenitors, that were phenotyped for T. crassiceps replication. In agreement with their genetic background, most AcB strains (A/J-derived) were found to be permissive to infection while most BcA strains (B6-derived) were restrictive with the exception of a few discordant strains, together suggesting a possible simple genetic control. Initial haplotype association mapping using >1200 informative SNPs pointed to linkages on chromosomes 2 (proximal) and 6 as controlling parasite replication in the AcB/BcA panel. Additional linkage analysis by genome scan in informative [AcB55xDBA/2]F1 and F2 mice (derived from the discordant AcB55 strain), confirmed the effect of chromosome 2 on parasite replication, and further delineated a major locus (LOD = 4.76, p<0.01; peak marker D2Mit295, 29.7 Mb) that we designate Tccr1 (T. crassiceps cysticercosis restrictive locus 1). Resistance alleles at Tccr1 are derived from AcB55 and are inherited in a dominant fashion. Scrutiny of the minimal genetic interval reveals overlap of Tccr1 with other host resistance loci mapped to this region, most notably the defective Hc/C5 allele which segregates both in the AcB/BcA set and in the AcB55xDBA/2 cross. These results strongly suggest that the complement component 5 (C5) plays a critical role in early protective inflammatory response to infection with T. crassiceps.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".