Eosinophils Are Dispensable for Allergic Remodeling and Immunity in a Model of House Dust Mite–induced Airway Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Current thinking accredits eosinophils with preeminent contributions to allergic airway responses, including a major role in the development of airway remodeling, a process thought to significantly contribute to airway dysfunction. However, direct evidence in support of this notion is limited and often controversial. OBJECTIVES: We elucidated the requirement for eosinophils in the generation of allergic sensitization, airway inflammation, and remodeling in a model involving chronic respiratory exposure to house dust mite (HDM). METHODS: We used three methods to selectively eliminate eosinophils, a depleting antibody (anti-CCR3), and two strains of eosinophil-deficient mice (ΔdblGATA and the transgenic line PHIL). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Anti-CCR3 treatment markedly reduced pulmonary eosinophilia (> 80%) over the course of HDM exposure but had no effect on the remaining inflammatory response, the extent of lung Th2 cells, or the development of remodeling-associated changes, including subepithelial collagen deposition and smooth muscle thickening. In addition, we observed that, despite the absence of eosinophils, HDM-exposed GATA mice mounted robust airway and lung inflammation and hyperresponsiveness and showed a remodeling response equivalent to that observed in wild-type mice. Moreover, these mice had similar serum HDM-specific IgE levels and Th2-associated splenocyte cytokine production as HDM-exposed wild-type control mice. Similar observations were made in PHIL eosinophil-deficient mice subjected to chronic HDM exposure, although slight decreases in airway mononuclear cells, but not lung Th2 cells, and remodeling were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, these data demonstrate that, at variance with the prevailing paradigm, eosinophils play negligible roles in the generation of HDM-induced allergic immunity and airway remodeling.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".