Comparative Study of the Ability of<i>Leishmania mexicana</i>Promastigotes and Amastigotes To Alter Macrophage Signaling and Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leishmania alternates between two morphologically different stages, promastigotes and amastigotes. While the majority of reports focused on how the promastigote form can alter macrophage (Mphi) signaling and function, fewer reports investigated signaling alterations mediated by amastigotes, and there is a lack of comparative studies. In this study, we performed a comparison between the ability of both forms of the parasite to alter Mphi signaling and functions. Here, we show that both promastigotes and amastigotes were able to rapidly activate host protein tyrosine phosphatases (PTPs), importantly the Src homology 2 domain-containing PTP (SHP-1). However, we found that PTP-1B is specifically activated by promastigote but not amastigote infection and that lmcpb(-/-) promastigotes were no longer able to activate PTP-1B. We also show a similarity in the way promastigotes and amastigotes inactivate the transcription factors (TFs) STAT-1alpha and AP-1, but we show differences in the modulation of NF-kappaB, with promastigotes cleaving the p65 subunit, generating a smaller p35 subunit, and amastigotes fully degrading the p65 subunit with no p35 production. Importantly, we show that the cysteine proteinase LmCPb plays a key role in the alteration of NF-kappaB, STAT-1alpha, and AP-1 by promastigote and amastigote infections, ultimately leading to the inability of these TFs to translocate to the nucleus in response to gamma interferon (IFN-gamma) stimulation and thus contributing to the ability of both parasite forms to effectively block IFN-gamma-mediated nitric oxide (NO) production in Mphis.
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".