Computational modeling of cytokine signaling in microglia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuroinflammation due to glial activation has been linked to many CNS diseases. We developed a computational model of a microglial cytokine interaction network to study the regulatory mechanisms of microglia-mediated neuroinflammation. We established a literature-based cytokine network, including TNFα, TGFβ, and IL-10, and fitted a mathematical model to published data from LPS-treated microglia. The addition of a previously unreported TGFβ autoregulation loop to our model was required to account for experimental data. Global sensitivity analysis revealed that TGFβ- and IL-10-mediated inhibition of TNFα was critical for regulating network behavior. We assessed the sensitivity of the LPS-induced TNFα response profile to the initial TGFβ and IL-10 levels. The analysis showed two relatively shifted TNFα response profiles within separate domains of initial condition space. Further analysis revealed that TNFα exhibited adaptation to sustained LPS stimulation. We simulated the effects of functionally inhibiting TGFβ and IL-10 on TNFα adaptation. Our analysis showed that TGFβ and IL-10 knockouts (TGFβ KO and IL-10 KO) exert divergent effects on adaptation. TFGβ KO attenuated TNFα adaptation whereas IL-10 KO enhanced TNFα adaptation. We experimentally tested the hypothesis that IL-10 KO enhances TNFα adaptation in murine macrophages and found supporting evidence. These opposing effects could be explained by differential kinetics of negative feedback. Inhibition of IL-10 reduced early negative feedback that results in enhanced TNFα-mediated TGFβ expression. We propose that differential kinetics in parallel negative feedback loops constitute a novel mechanism underlying the complex and non-intuitive pro- versus anti-inflammatory effects of individual cytokine perturbations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".