MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146318912 · doi:10.1186/1746-1340-18-26

Interleukin 2-regulated in vitro antibody production following a single spinal manipulative treatment in normal subjects

2010· article· en· W2146318912 on OpenAlexaff
Julita A. Teodorczyk-Injeyan, Marion McGregor, Richard Ruegg, H. Stephen Injeyan

Bibliographic record

VenueChiropractic & Osteopathy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPokeweed mitogenMedicineAntibodyPeripheral blood mononuclear cellImmune systemCytokineStimulationImmunologyInternal medicineImmunoglobulin GInterleukin 2VenipunctureInterleukinEndocrinologyIn vitroBiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Our recent investigations have demonstrated that cell cultures from subjects, who received a single spinal manipulative treatment in the upper thoracic spine, show increased capacity for the production of the key immunoregulatory cytokine, interleukin-2. However, it has not been determined if such changes influence the response of the immune effector cells. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to determine whether, in the same subjects, spinal manipulation-related augmentation of the in vitro interleukin-2 synthesis is associated with the modulation of interleukin 2-dependent and/or interleukin-2-induced humoral immune response (antibody synthesis). METHODS: A total of seventy-four age and sex-matched healthy asymptomatic subjects were studied. The subjects were assigned randomly to: venipuncture control (n = 22), spinal manipulative treatment without cavitation (n = 25) or spinal manipulative treatment associated with cavitation (n = 27) groups. Heparinized blood samples were obtained from the subjects before (baseline) and then at 20 minutes and 2 hours post-treatment. Immunoglobulin (antibody) synthesis was induced in cultures of peripheral blood mononuclear cells by stimulation with conventional pokeweed mitogen or by application of human recombinant interleukin-2. Determinations of the levels of immunoglobulin G and immunoglobulin M production in culture supernatants were performed by specific immunoassays. RESULTS: The baseline levels of immunoglobulin synthesis induced by pokeweed mitogen or human recombinant interleukin-2 stimulation were comparable in all groups. No significant changes in the production of pokeweed mitogen-induced immunoglobulins were observed during the post-treatment period in any of the study groups. In contrast, the production of interleukin-2 -induced immunoglobulin G and immunoglobulin M was significantly increased in cultures from subjects treated with spinal manipulation. At 20 min post-manipulation, immunoglobulin G synthesis was significantly elevated in subjects who received manipulation with cavitation, relative to that in cultures from subjects who received manipulation without cavitation and venipuncture alone. At 2 hr post-treatment, immunoglobulin M synthesis was significantly elevated in subjects who received manipulation with cavitation relative to the venipuncture group. There were no quantitative alterations within the population of peripheral blood B or T lymphocytes in the studied cultures. CONCLUSION: Spinal manipulative treatment does not increase interleukin-2 -dependent polyclonal immunoglobulin synthesis by mitogen-activated B cells. However, antibody synthesis induced by interleukin-2 alone can be, at least temporarily, augmented following spinal manipulation. Thus, under certain physiological conditions spinal manipulative treatment might influence interleukin-2 -regulated biological responses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChiropractic & OsteopathySame topicExercise and Physiological ResponsesFrench-language works237,207