Intranasal inoculation of <i>Chlamydia trachomatis</i> mouse pneumonitis agent induces significant neutrophil infiltration which is not efficient in controlling the infection in mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that chlamydial infection is accompanied by significant infiltration of neutrophils at the site of infection. However, the role of neutrophils in host defence against chlamydial infection is not clearly understood. Using genetically different inbred mouse strains and CXCR-2 gene knockout (KO) mice, we examined the mechanism for neutrophil recruitment and the role of neutrophils during chlamydial lung infection. Our data showed that C3H mice exhibited significantly higher and more persistent neutrophil infiltration in the lung than did C57BL/6 mice following Chlamydia trachomatis mouse pneumonitis infection. The massive neutrophil infiltration in C3H mice was paralleled by high-level expression of CXCR-2 and its ligands, CXC chemokines (macrophage inflammatory protein 2, cytokine-induced neutrophil attractant (KC) and lipopolysaccharide-induced CXC chemokine), and proinflammatory cytokines (tumour necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin-1 and interleukin-6) in the lung. Although much greater infiltration of neutrophils was observed in C3H mice than in C57BL/6 mice, the former mice had more severe disease and higher in vivo chlamydial growth than the latter. Moreover, CXCR-2 KO mice, which revealed a dramatic reduction in neutrophil activity, showed comparable chlamydial infection to wild-type mice. These results suggest that neutrophils are not efficient for controlling chlamydial lung infection.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".