A Re-evaluation of the Role of Host Defence Peptides in Mammalian Immunity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Host defence peptides are found in all classes of life and are a fundamental component of the innate immune response. Initially it was believed that their sole role in innate immunity was to kill invading microorganisms, thus providing direct defence against infection. Evidence now suggests that these peptides play diverse and complex roles in the immune response and that, in higher animals, their functions are not restricted to the innate immune response. In in vitro experiments certain host defence peptides have been demonstrated to be potent antimicrobial agents at modest concentrations, although their antimicrobial activity is often strongly reduced or ablated in the presence of physiological concentrations of ions such as Na(+) and Mg(2+). In contrast, in experiments done in standard tissue culture media, the composition of which more accurately represents physiological levels of ions, mammalian host defence peptides have been demonstrated to have a number of immunomodulatory functions including altering host gene expression, acting as chemokines and/or inducing chemokine production, inhibiting lipopolysaccharide induced pro-inflammatory cytokine production, promoting wound healing, and modulating the responses of dendritic cells and cells of the adaptive immune response. Animal models indicate that host defence peptides are crucial for both prevention and clearance of infection. As interest in the in vivo functions of host defence peptides is increasing, it is important to consider whether in mammals the direct antimicrobial and immunomodulatory properties observed in vitro are physiologically relevant, especially since many of these activities are concentration dependent. In this review we summarize the concentrations of host defence peptides and ions reported throughout the body and compare that information with the concentrations of peptides that are known have antimicrobial or immunomodulatory functions in vitro.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".