The dual role of innate immunity in the antiphospholipid syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), as both a primary syndrome and a syndrome in association with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), can be a devastating disease. It is unclear what factors (genetic and/or environmental) lead to the generation of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). It is equally unclear why only certain individuals with aPL develop clinical events. We hypothesize that innate immune activation plays a critical role at two distinct stages of APS, namely, the initiation phase, in which aPL first appear, and the effector phase, in which aPL precipitate a thrombotic event. According to the model we propose, aPL alone are insufficient to cause thrombosis and a concomitant trigger of innate immunity, e.g. a toll-like receptor (TLR) ligand, must be present for thrombosis to occur. Here, we discuss our findings that mice immunized with beta(2)-glycoprotein I (beta(2)GPI) and lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a TLR ligand, produce high levels of aPL and other SLE-associated autoantibodies, and develop lupus-like glomerulonephritis. We also discuss our data showing that autoantibodies to heat shock protein 60 (HSP60), an 'endogenous TLR ligand', promote thrombus generation in a murine model of arterial injury. Thus, both pathogen-derived TLR ligands (e.g. LPS) and endogenous TLR ligands (e.g. HSP60) may contribute to the pathogenesis of APS. This putative dual role of innate immunity provides new insight into the generation of aPL as well as the enigma of why some individuals with aPL develop APS, while others do not.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".