MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2195849356 · doi:10.1139/cjm-2015-0561

Hydrogen peroxide-induced secondary necrosis in conidia of <i>Aspergillus fumigatus</i>

2015· article· en· W2195849356 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Manuela Oliveira, Clara Pereira, Cláudia Bessa, Ricardo Araújo, Lucı́lia Saraiva

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRede de Química e TecnologiaFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaApplied Molecular Biosciences Unit
KeywordsAspergillus fumigatusHydrogen peroxideMicrobiologyConidiumNecrosisAspergillusChemistryAspergillosisBiologyBiochemistryImmunologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aspergillus fumigatus conidia have been linked to severe aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients. Recently, the cytotoxic effect of secondary metabolites from A. fumigatus conidia was reported. In the present work, a methodology used to detect cell death markers in fungal hyphae was adapted to study conidia cell death. Additionally, the mechanism of H2O2-induced cell death was studied in A. fumigatus conidia for the first time. Data presented in this work reveal that the H2O2-induced conidial cell death was associated with a marked increase of TUNEL- and PI-positive cells. It is therefore suggested that conidia cell death occurs in a dose-dependent manner through a secondary necrosis mechanism. The knowledge of conidia cell death machinery may provide insights into the molecular mechanism of conidia-mediated toxicity to the respiratory tract and may pave the way for improved therapeutic approaches against A. fumigatus conidia-mediated diseases.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Microbiology→Same topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food→French-language works237,207→