TLR Ligands Induce Antiviral Responses in Chicken Macrophages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chicken macrophages express several receptors for recognition of pathogens, including Toll-like receptors (TLRs). TLRs bind to pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) derived from bacterial or viral pathogens leading to the activation of macrophages. Macrophages play a critical role in immunity against viruses, including influenza viruses. The present study was designed to test the hypothesis that treatment of chicken macrophages with TLR ligands reduces avian influenza replication. Furthermore, we sought to study the expression of some of the key mediators involved in the TLR-mediated antiviral responses of macrophages. Chicken macrophages were treated with the TLR2, 3, 4, 7 and 21 ligands, Pam3CSK4, poly(I:C), LPS, R848 and CpG ODN, respectively, at different doses and time points pre- and post-H4N6 avian influenza virus (AIV) infection. The results revealed that pre-treatment of macrophages with Pam3CSK4, LPS and CpG ODN reduced the replication of AIV in chicken macrophages. In addition, the relative expression of genes involved in inflammatory and antiviral responses were quantified at 3, 8 and 18 hours post-treatment with the TLR2, 4 and 21 ligands. Pam3CSK4, LPS and CpG ODN increased the expression of interleukin (IL)-1β, interferon (IFN)-γ, IFN-β and interferon regulatory factor (IFR) 7. The expression of these genes correlated with the reduction of viral replication in macrophages. These results shed light on the process of immunity to AIV in chickens.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".