Immune Responses Induced by the<i>Leishmania</i>(<i>Leishmania</i>)<i>donovani</i>A2 Antigen, but Not by the LACK Antigen, Are Protective against Experimental<i>Leishmania</i>(<i>Leishmania</i>)<i>amazonensis</i>Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leishmania amazonensis is one of the major etiologic agents of a broad spectrum of clinical forms of leishmaniasis and has a wide geographical distribution in the Americas, which overlaps with the areas of transmission of many other Leishmania species. The LACK and A2 antigens are shared by various Leishmania species. A2 was previously shown to induce a potent Th1 immune response and protection against L. donovani infection in BALB/c mice. LACK is effective against L. major infection, but no significant protection against L. donovani infection was observed, in spite of the induction of a potent Th1 immune response. In an attempt to select candidate antigens for an American leishmaniasis vaccine, we investigated the protective effect of these recombinant antigens (rLACK and rA2) and recombinant interleukin-12 (rIL-12) against L. amazonensis infection in BALB/c mice. As expected, immunization with either rA2-rIL-12 or rLACK-rIL-12 induced a robust Th1 response prior to infection. However, only the BALB/c mice immunized with rA2-rIL-12 were protected against infection. Sustained gamma interferon (IFN-gamma) production, high levels of anti-A2 antibodies, and low levels of parasite-specific antibodies were detected in these mice after infection. In contrast, mice immunized with rLACK-rIL-12 displayed decreased levels of IFN-gamma and high levels of both anti-LACK and parasite-specific antibodies. Curiously, the association between rA2 and rLACK antigens in the same vaccine completely inhibited the rA2-specific IFN-gamma and humoral responses and, consequently, the protective effect of the rA2 antigen against L. amazonensis infection. We concluded that A2, but not LACK, fits the requirements for a safe vaccine against American leishmaniasis.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".