Oral Treatment with Live <i>Lactobacillus reuteri</i> Inhibits the Allergic Airway Response in Mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Clinical trials have demonstrated that probiotics may be effective in the treatment and prevention of atopic disease in children but there have been few reports of therapeutic effects of oral probiotics outside the gastrointestinal tract. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the effect of two probiotic organisms on the response to antigen challenge in a mouse model of allergic airway inflammation. METHODS: We used an ovalbumin-sensitized asthma model in BALB/c and Toll-like receptor 9-deficient mice. Animals were treated with probiotic organisms via gavaging needle before antigen challenge. After antigen challenge, airway responsiveness to methacholine, influx of inflammatory cells to the lung, and cytokine levels in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid were assessed. RESULTS: Oral treatment with live Lactobacillus reuteri but not Lactobacillus salivarius significantly attenuated the influx of eosinophils to the airway lumen and parenchyma and reduced the levels of tumor necrosis factor, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, IL-5, and IL-13 in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid of antigen-challenged animals, but there was no change in eotaxin or IL-10. L. reuteri but not L. salivarius also decreased allergen-induced airway hyperresponsiveness. These responses were dependent on Toll-like receptor 9 and were associated with increased activity of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase. Killed organisms did not mimic the ability of the live L. reuteri to attenuate inflammation or airway hyperresponsiveness. CONCLUSION: Oral treatment with live L. reuteri can attenuate major characteristics of an asthmatic response in a mouse model of allergic airway inflammation. These results suggest that oral treatment with specific live probiotic strains may have therapeutic potential in the treatment of allergic airway disease.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".