Immunology of the host–parasite relationship in fasciolosis (<i>Fasciola hepatica</i>and<i>Fasciola gigantica</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The protective resolution of liver fluke (Fasciola hepatica and Fasciola gigantica) infection is a dynamic interplay between the host's effector responses and the parasite's defence and immunomodulatory systems. The evidence suggests that the juvenile or immature parasite is the target of protective host immune responses but the effector mechanisms employed vary between hosts. Moreover, F. hepatica and F. gigantica differ in their susceptibility to these killing mechanisms. In the rat, in vitro killing of juvenile F. hepatica involves an antibody-dependent cell cytotoxicity mediated by nitric oxide produced by activated monocytes and (or) macrophages. However, monocytes and (or) macrophages from Indonesian sheep do not produce nitric oxide yet can effectively kill juvenile F. gigantica in vitro and in vivo by a mechanism that is ineffective against F. hepatica. These data show that disease progression or resolution in fasciolosis is determined both by biochemical differences between Fasciola species and by host-dependent factors. Understanding the genetic basis for these differences is a key question for the future. Fasciola hepatica and F. gigantica actively modulate the host immune response, downregulating type 1 responses during infection. It is important to determine whether such modulation of the immune response by Fasciola spp. directly leads to enhanced parasite survival in the various hosts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".