Comparison of the Effects of<i>Leishmania major</i>or<i>Leishmania donovani</i>Infection on Macrophage Gene Expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intracellular parasite Leishmania causes a wide spectrum of human disease, ranging from self-resolving cutaneous lesions to fatal visceral disease, depending on the species of Leishmania involved. The mechanisms by which different Leishmania species cause different pathologies are largely unknown. We have addressed this question by comparing the gene expression profiles of bone marrow-derived macrophages infected with either Leishmania donovani or L. major promastigotes. We found that the two species had very similar effects on macrophage gene expression. Both species caused a small (<2.5-fold) but statistically significant repression of several hundred genes. In addition, both species strongly induced and repressed about 60 genes. Comparing the effects of the two species showed that only 26 genes were regulated differently by L. major as opposed to L. donovani, including those for metallothioneins 1 and 2, HSP70 and -72, CCL4, Gadd45beta, Dsp1, matrix metalloprotease 13, T-cell death-associated gene 51 (Tdag51), RhoB, spermine/spermidine N1-acyl transferase 1 (SSAT), and Cox2. L. donovani-infected macrophages were also found to express higher levels of Cox2 protein and prostaglandin E synthase mRNA than L. major-infected macrophages. While both species have previously been shown to trigger prostaglandin E synthesis by bystander cells, this study suggests that infected macrophages themselves express prostaglandin E-synthesizing genes only in response to L. donovani.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".