Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Leukocyte-Endothelial Cell Interactions: A Role for CD14 Versus Toll-Like Receptor 4 Within Microvessels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to systematically assess leukocyte-endothelial cell interactions in vivo in response to LPS in CD14-deficient (CD14(-/-)) and Toll-like receptor 4-deficient (TLR4(d); C3H/HeJ) mice. Local injection of LPS (0.05 micro g/kg) into muscle at a concentration that did not cause systemic effects produced a significant reduction in the speed with which leukocytes roll and a substantial increase in leukocyte adhesion and emigration 4 h postinjection. There was no response to LPS in the muscle microvasculature of CD14(-/-) mice or TLR4(d) animals. Systemic LPS induced leukopenia and significant sequestration of neutrophils in lungs in wild-type mice but not in CD14(-/-) or TLR4(d) mice. P-selectin expression was examined in numerous mouse organs using a dual radiolabeling mAb technique. The results revealed a 20- to 50-fold increase in P-selectin expression in response to LPS in all wild-type tissues examined but no response in any TLR4(d) tissues. Surprisingly, there was consistently a partial, significant increase in P-selectin expression in numerous microvasculatures including skin and pancreas, but no increase in P-selectin was detected in lung, muscle, and other organs in CD14(-/-) mice in response to LPS. Next, the skin and muscle microcirculation were visualized using intravital microscopy after systemic LPS treatment, and the results confirmed a CD14-independent mechanism of leukocyte sequestration in skin but not muscle. In summary, our results suggest that the LPS-induced leukocyte sequestration to some tissues is entirely dependent on both CD14 and TLR4 but there are CD14-independent, TLR4-dependent endothelial cell responses in some microvascular beds.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".