MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145268435 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.167.3.1778

Adenoviral Augmentation of Elafin Protects the Lung Against Acute Injury Mediated by Activated Neutrophils and Bacterial Infection

2001· article· en· W2145268435 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A. John Simpson, William Wallace, Mark E. Marsden, John R. W. Govan, David J. Porteous, Chris Haslett, Jean‐Michel Sallenave

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of EdinburghWellcome TrustMcMaster University
KeywordsElafinIn vivoImmunologyPseudomonas aeruginosaNeutrophil elastaseMicrobiologyProinflammatory cytokineLungInflammationAntimicrobialBiologyMedicineBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During acute pulmonary infection, tissue injury may be secondary to the effects of bacterial products or to the effects of the host inflammatory response. An attractive strategy for tissue protection in this setting would combine antimicrobial activity with inhibition of human neutrophil elastase (HNE), a key effector of neutrophil-mediated tissue injury. We postulated that genetic augmentation of elafin (an endogenous inhibitor of HNE with intrinsic antimicrobial activity) could protect the lung against acute inflammatory injury without detriment to host defense. A replication-deficient adenovirus encoding elafin cDNA significantly protected A549 cells against the injurious effects of both HNE and whole activated human neutrophils in vitro. Intratracheal replication-deficient adenovirus encoding elafin cDNA significantly protected murine lungs against injury mediated by Pseudomonas aeruginosa in vivo. Genetic augmentation of elafin therefore has the capacity to protect the lung against the injurious effects of both bacterial pathogens resistant to conventional antibiotics and activated neutrophils.

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)0.001
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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations88
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207