MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mechanism of CD150 (SLAM) Down Regulation from the Host Cell Surface by Measles Virus Hemagglutinin Protein

2004· article· en· W2091604505 on OpenAlexafffund
G. Grant Welstead, Eric C. Hsu, Caterina Iorio, Shelly Bolotin, Christopher D. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Virology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVirology and Viral Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMeasles virusBiologyHemagglutinin (influenza)VirusCell biologyVirologyEndoplasmic reticulumCD46Immune systemMeaslesImmunologyVaccination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measles virus has been reported to enter host cells via either of two cellular receptors, CD46 and CD150 (SLAM). CD46 is found on most cells of higher primates, while SLAM is expressed on activated B, T, and dendritic cells and is an important regulatory molecule of the immune system. Previous reports have shown that measles virus can down regulate expression of its two cellular receptors on the host cell surface during infection. In this study, the process of down regulation of SLAM by measles virus was investigated. We demonstrated that expression of the hemagglutinin (H) protein of measles virus was sufficient for down regulation. Our studies provided evidence that interactions between H and SLAM in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) can promote the down regulation of SLAM but not CD46. In addition, we demonstrated that interactions between H and SLAM at the host cell surface can also contribute to SLAM down regulation. These results indicate that two mechanisms involving either intracellular interactions between H and SLAM in the ER or receptor-mediated binding to H at the surfaces of host cells can lead to the down regulation of SLAM during measles virus 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 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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations40
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VirologySame topicVirology and Viral DiseasesFrench-language works237,207