Distinct Patterns of B-Cell Activation and Priming by Natural Influenza Virus Infection Versus Inactivated Influenza Vaccination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The human B-cell response to natural influenza virus infection has not been extensively investigated at the polyclonal level. METHODS: The overall B-cell response of patients acutely infected with the 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus (A[H1N1]pdm09) was analyzed by determining the reactivity of plasmablast-derived polyclonal antibodies (PPAbs) to influenza proteins. Recipients of inactivated influenza vaccine containing the same A(H1N1)pdm09 strain were studied for comparison. RESULTS: During acute infection, robust plasmablast responses to the infecting virus were detected, characterized by a greater PPAb reactivity to the conserved influenza virus nuclear protein and to heterovariant and heterosubtypic hemagglutinins, in comparison to responses to the inactivated A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine. In A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccinees, the presence of baseline serum neutralizing antibodies against A(H1N1)pdm09, suggesting previous exposure to natural A(H1N1)pdm09 infection, did not affect the plasmablast response to vaccination, whereas repeated immunization with inactivated A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccine resulted in significantly reduced vaccine-specific and cross-reactive PPAb responses. CONCLUSIONS: Natural A(H1N1)pdm09 infection and inactivated A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccination result in very distinct patterns of B-cell activation and priming. These differences are likely to be associated with differences in protective immunity, especially cross-protection against heterovariant and heterosubtypic influenza virus strains.
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".