MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129695714 · doi:10.1086/380764

CD36 Mediates the Phagocytosis of<i>Plasmodium falciparum</i>–Infected Erythrocytes by Rodent Macrophages

2004· article· en· W2129695714 on OpenAlexaff
Samir N. Patel, Lena Serghides, Maria Febbraio, Roy L. Silverstein, Theodore W. Kurtz, Michal Pravenec, Kevin C. Kain

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health ResearchUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhagocytosisCD36Plasmodium falciparumMacrophageMicrobiologyBiologyVirologyImmunologyProtozoaRodentMalariaReceptorIn vitroGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phagocytic cells represent an important line of innate defense against malaria; however, little is known of the mechanism by which macrophages recognize Plasmodium falciparum-parasitized erythrocytes (PEs). Using macrophages from CD36 wild-type (WT), CD36-null, and CD36 transgenically-rescued rodents, we demonstrate a major role for CD36 in the phagocytosis of PEs. WT macrophages display enhanced phagocytic capacity for nonopsonized PEs, compared with that for CD36-null mouse and rat macrophages. Transgenic rescue of CD36-deficient rats restored macrophage phagocytic capacity for PEs. CD36 receptor blockade with monoclonal antibodies and proteolytic cleavage of CD36 ligands from the surface of PEs inhibited the uptake of PEs. Up-regulation of rodent CD36 by use of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPARgamma) agonists increased the phagocytosis of PEs. CD36-mediated uptake of PEs did not result in increased tumor necrosis factor-alpha secretion, of which high levels are associated with adverse outcomes in malaria. These studies support the use of these rodent models to examine PE-CD36 interactions.

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 score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations144
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207