Comparative Evaluation of Two Vaccine Candidates against Experimental Leishmaniasis Due to<i>Leishmania major</i>Infection in Four Inbred Mouse Strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental leishmaniasis in BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice are the most investigated murine models that were used for the preclinical evaluation of Leishmania vaccine candidates. We have previously described two new inbred mouse strains named PWK and MAI issued from feral founders that also support the development of experimental leishmaniasis due to L. major. In this study, we sought to determine whether different mouse inbred strains generate concordant or discordant results when used to evaluate the potential of Leishmania proteins to protect against experimental leishmaniasis. To this end, two Leishmania proteins, namely, LACK (for Leishmania homolog of receptor for activated C kinase) and LmPDI (for L. major protein disulfide isomerase) were compared for their capacity to protect against experimental leishmaniasis in PWK, MAI, BALB/c, and C57BL/6 inbred mouse strains. Our data show that the capacity of Leishmania proteins to confer protection depends on the mouse strain used, stressing the important role played by the genetic background in shaping the immune response against the pathogen. These results may have important implications for the preclinical evaluation of candidate Leishmania vaccines: rather than using a single mouse strain, a panel of different inbred strains of various genetic backgrounds should be tested in parallel. The antigen that confers protection in the larger range of inbred strains may have better chances to be also protective in outbred human populations and should be selected for clinical trials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".