MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179197851 · doi:10.3390/pathogens4040826

Antimicrobial Mechanisms of Macrophages and the Immune Evasion Strategies of Staphylococcus aureus

2015· review· en· W2179197851 on OpenAlexafffund
Ronald S. Flannagan, Bryan Heit, David E. Heinrichs

Bibliographic record

VenuePathogens · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Response and Inflammation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStaphylococcus aureusMicrobiologyImmune systemAntimicrobialBiologyInnate immune systemEffectorEvasion (ethics)ImmunologyImmunityMacrophagePathogenAcquired immune systemAntimicrobial peptidesBacteriaIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Habitually professional phagocytes, including macrophages, eradicate microbial invaders from the human body without overt signs of infection. Despite this, there exist select bacteria that are professional pathogens, causing significant morbidity and mortality across the globe and Staphylococcus aureus is no exception. S. aureus is a highly successful pathogen that can infect virtually every tissue that comprises the human body causing a broad spectrum of diseases. The profound pathogenic capacity of S. aureus can be attributed, in part, to its ability to elaborate a profusion of bacterial effectors that circumvent host immunity. Macrophages are important professional phagocytes that contribute to both the innate and adaptive immune response, however from in vitro and in vivo studies, it is evident that they fail to eradicate S. aureus. This review provides an overview of the antimicrobial mechanisms employed by macrophages to combat bacteria and describes the immune evasion strategies and some representative effectors that enable S. aureus to evade macrophage-mediated killing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations191
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePathogensSame topicImmune Response and InflammationFrench-language works237,207