Stimulation of respiratory immunity by oral administration of<i>Lactococcus lactis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work demonstrates that non-recombinant Lactococcus lactis NZ, administered by the oral route at the proper dose, is able to improve resistance against pneumococcal infection. Lactococcus lactis NZ oral administration was able to improve pathogen lung clearance, increased survival of infected mice, and reduced lung injuries. This effect was related to an upregulation of the respiratory innate and specific immune responses. Administration of L. lactis NZ improved production of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid TNF-alpha, enhanced recruitment of neutrophils into the alveolar spaces, and induced a higher activation of BAL phagocytes compared with the control group. Lactococcus lactis NZ administered orally stimulated the IgA cycle, increased IgA+ cells in intestine and bronchus, and improved production of BAL IL-4 and IL-10 during infection. Moreover, mice treated with L. lactis NZ showed higher levels of BAL anti-pneumococcal IgA and IgG. Taking into consideration that orally administered L. lactis NZ stimulates both the innate and the specific immune responses in the respiratory tract and that bacterial and viral antigens have been efficiently produced in this strain, L. lactis NZ is an excellent candidate for the development of an effective pneumococcal oral vaccine.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".