Function of cAMP response element modulator in a murine asthma model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Several isoforms of the cAMP response element modulator (CREM) act as transcriptional repressors or activators binding to the cAMP response element of different promoters. In contact dermatitis we previously demonstrated the importance of CREM for antigen presenting cell-dependent and independent T cell function and termination of T cellular immune response. In this study we investigated the role of CREM in murine ovalbumin (OVA)-induced airway inflammation. Method: Male wild type (WT) and CREM-knockout animals (CREM-KO) were sensitized i.p. with 10μg OVA in aluminum hydroxide solution (day 0, 14 and 21) and with aerosol (1% OVA on day 28 and 29). On day 35 bronchial responses to nebulized acetylcholine (0.001-1mg) were examined using the flexiVent system (SCIREQ, Montreal, Canada). Inflammatory responses were evaluated by cell counts, cytokine- and IgE measurements in bronchoalveloar lavage (BAL) and serum. Changes in lung tissue were investigated by histology and calculation of the wet/dry-ratio. Results: CREM-KO mice showed an increase in airway responsiveness by elevation in central airway (177%) and tissue resistance (214%) compared to WT (100%). In addition, higher numbers of eosinophils and lymphocytes as well as upregulated Th2 cytokines were found in the BAL of CREM-KO mice. Lung histology indicated increased pulmonary cell infiltration, stronger mucus production and goblet cell hyperplasia. Conclusion: CREM deficiency drives Th2 immune response and influences airway tone as well as mucus production. Our findings suggest that the presence of CREM at least partially protects from the development of asthmatic disease by immunological and non-immunological mechanisms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".