Replication of an H9N2 Avian Influenza Virus and Cytokine Gene Expression in Chickens Exposed by Aerosol or Intranasal Routes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study related the replication of an H9N2 avian influenza virus in chickens to the induction of host acute immune response after aerosol or intranasal inoculation with the virus. On 1, 2, 4, and 7 days postinoculation (dpi), oropharyngeal swabs and tissue specimens of trachea, lungs, spleen, and cecal tonsils were collected for quantification of viral RNA. Expression of cytokine genes in lungs, spleen, and cecal tonsils was quantified by reverse transcriptase-PCR. Virus was detected in all oropharyngeal swabs up to 4 dpi in chickens from both inoculation groups. However, virus was detected more frequently (P<0.05) and in higher titers (1-4 log difference) in specimens of trachea and lungs from the group exposed to aerosols than from the group given intranasal drops. In accord with viral replication findings, expressions of cytokine genes interleukin (IL)-1β (on 2 and 7 dpi), IL-6 (on 2 dpi), and interferon (IFN)-γ (on 2 and 4 dpi) were up-regulated to a significantly higher level (P<0.05) in lung tissue specimens from the group exposed to virus aerosol than from controls that were given saline intranasally. Only IFN-γ on 1 dpi was up-regulated (P<0.05) above that of controls in lung tissue specimens from the group given intranasal drops of virus. In comparison, replication of the virus and induction of IL-1β and IL-6 genes were limited in spleen and cecal tonsil tissue specimens from both groups of chickens inoculated with the virus. These findings indicate that virus administered in aerosols was more efficient than virus administered as intranasal drops, in infecting the lower respiratory tract and in inducing the activity of the cytokine genes. The intense respiratory infection caused by virus aerosols might increase the shedding and transmission of the H9N2 virus in chickens.
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".