MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114048159 · doi:10.1086/501472

Human Serum Amyloid P Component Protects against<i>Escherichia coli</i>O157:H7 Shiga Toxin 2 In Vivo: Therapeutic Implications for Hemolytic‐Uremic Syndrome

2006· article· en· W2114048159 on OpenAlexaff
Glen D. Armstrong, George L. Mulvey, Paola Marcato, Thomas P. Griener, Melvyn Kahan, Glenys A. Tennent, Caroline Sabin, Henrik Chart, Mark B. Pepys

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEscherichia coli research studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShiga toxinEscherichia coliMicrobiologyIn vivoLipopolysaccharideSTX2Serum amyloid P componentToxinBiologyAntibodyEnterobacteriaceaeImmunologyVirologyInflammationBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shiga toxin (Stx) 2 causes hemolytic-uremic syndrome (HUS), an intractable and often fatal complication of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection. Here, we show that serum amyloid P component (SAP), a normal human plasma protein, specifically protects mice against the lethal toxicity of Stx2, both when injected into wild-type mice and when expressed transgenically; in the presence of human SAP, there was greatly reduced in vivo localization of Stx2 to the kidneys, suggesting a possible mechanism of protection. In humans, circulating SAP concentrations did not differ between patients with suspected enterohemorrhagic E. coli infection with antibodies to E. coli O157:H7 lipopolysaccharide and those without antibodies or between patients with HUS and those without it. However, the potent protection conferred by human SAP in the mouse model suggests that infusion of supplemental SAP may be a useful novel therapeutic approach to the treatment of this devastating condition.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

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 head0.274
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations52
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicEscherichia coli research studiesFrench-language works237,207