MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158105817 · doi:10.1128/iai.01004-08

Immune Response and Alveolar Bone Resorption in a Mouse Model of<i>Treponema denticola</i>Infection

2008· article· en· W2158105817 on OpenAlexaff
Song F. Lee, Elisoa Andrian, Elden Rowland, Ignacio Christian Marquez

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection and Immunity · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral microbiology and periodontitis research
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsTreponema denticolaImmune systemBiologyAntibodySplenocytePathogenesisMicrobiologyImmunologyPeriodontal pathogenBacteriaPorphyromonas gingivalis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treponema denticola is considered to be an agent strongly associated with periodontal disease. The lack of an animal infection model has hampered the understanding of T. denticola pathogenesis and the host's immune response to infection. In this study, we have established an oral infection model in mice, demonstrating that infection by oral inoculation is feasible. The presence of T. denticola in the oral cavities of the animals was confirmed by PCR. Mice given T. denticola developed a specific immune response to the bacterium. The antibodies generated from the infection were mainly of the immunoglobulin G1 subclass, indicating a Th2-tilted response. The antibodies recognized 11 T. denticola proteins, of which a 62-kDa and a 53-kDa protein were deemed immunodominant. The two proteins were identified, respectively, as dentilisin and the major outer sheath protein by mass spectrometry. Splenocytes cultured from the infected mice no longer produced interleukin-10 and produced markedly reduced levels of gamma interferon relative to those produced by naïve splenocytes upon stimulation with T. denticola. Mandibles of infected mice showed significantly greater bone resorption (P < 0.01) than those of mock-infected controls.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations47
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfection and ImmunitySame topicOral microbiology and periodontitis researchFrench-language works237,207