MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083529615 · doi:10.1139/bcb-2012-0115

Proteolytic antigens interfere with endosome/lysosome fusion in epithelial cells

2013· article· en· W2083529615 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuwei Liao, Xingmao Wu, Jia Jia, Xiao‐Lei Wu, Tao Hong, Haiyuan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLysosomeCell biologyBarrier functionEndosomeEndocytic cycleEpitheliumBiologyTight junctionEndocytosisCell cultureAntigenChemistryImmunologyCellIntracellularBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The airway epithelial barrier function is important in maintaining the homeostasis in the body. A number of airway disorders are associated with the epithelial barrier dysfunction. The present study aims to elucidate a possible mechanism by which the proteolytic allergens compromise the epithelial barrier function. The airway epithelial cell line, RPMI 2650 cells (Rp cells) and kidney epithelial cell line, MDCK cells, were cultured to be monolayers and used as an in vitro epithelial barrier model. House dust mite antigen, Der P1 (Der) was used as an antigen that has the proteolytic property. The epithelial barrier permeability and transepithelial resistance (TER) were used as the indicators of epithelial barrier function. Both epithelial cell lines could endocytose Der in the culture. Some of the Der was transported across the epithelial barrier to the basal chambers of the Transwells without affecting the TER. The endocytic Der could suppress the expression of ubiquitin E3 lases A20 and further interfered with the fusion of endosome/lysosome in the epithelial cells. Mite antigen, Der, can interfere with the fusion of endosome/lysosome in epithelial cells to induce the epithelial barrier dysfunction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFrench-language works237,207