MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116881925 · doi:10.1128/jvi.01655-08

Role for CCR5 in Dissemination of Vaccinia Virus In Vivo

2008· article· en· W2116881925 on OpenAlexafffund
Ramtin Rahbar, Thomas T. Murooka, Eleanor N. Fish

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Virology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyVacciniaVirologyVirusIn vivoPoxviridaeGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an earlier report, we provided evidence that expression of CCR5 by primary human T cells renders them permissive for vaccinia virus (VACV) replication. This may represent a mechanism for dissemination throughout the lymphatic system. To test this hypothesis, wild-type CCR5(+/+) and CCR5 null mice were challenged with VACV by intranasal inoculation. In time course studies using different infective doses of VACV, we identified viral replication in the lungs of both CCR5(+/+) and CCR5(-/-) mice, yet there were diminished viral loads in the spleens and brains of CCR5(-/-) mice compared with CCR5(+/+) mice. Moreover, in association with VACV infection, we provide evidence for CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell as well as CD11c+ and F4/80+ cell infiltration into the lungs of CCR5(+/+) but not CCR5(-/-) mice, and we show that the CCR5-expressing T cells harbor virus. We demonstrate that this CCR5 dependence is VACV specific, since CCR5(-/-) mice are as susceptible to intranasal influenza virus (A/WSN/33) infection as CCR5(+/+) mice. In a final series of experiments, we provide evidence that adoptive transfer of CCR5(+/+) bone marrow leukocytes into CCR5(-/-) mice restores VACV permissiveness, with evidence of lung and spleen infection. Taken together, our data suggest a novel role for CCR5 in VACV dissemination in vivo.

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 score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VirologySame topicPoxvirus research and outbreaksFrench-language works237,207