Immune responses against Marek's disease virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is more than a century since Marek's disease (MD) was first reported in chickens and since then there have been concerted efforts to better understand this disease, its causative agent and various approaches for control of this disease. Recently, there have been several outbreaks of the disease in various regions, due to the evolving nature of MD virus (MDV), which necessitates the implementation of improved prophylactic approaches. It is therefore essential to better understand the interactions between chickens and the virus. The chicken immune system is directly involved in controlling the entry and the spread of the virus. It employs two distinct but interrelated mechanisms to tackle viral invasion. Innate defense mechanisms comprise secretion of soluble factors as well as cells such as macrophages and natural killer cells as the first line of defense. These innate responses provide the adaptive arm of the immune system including antibody- and cell-mediated immune responses to be tailored more specifically against MDV. In addition to the immune system, genetic and epigenetic mechanisms contribute to the outcome of MDV infection in chickens. This review discusses our current understanding of immune responses elicited against MDV and genetic factors that contribute to the nature of the 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".