MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337206086 · doi:10.1007/s12275-016-6045-4

Recent advances in the understanding of the Aspergillus fumigatus cell wall

2016· review· en· W2337206086 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark J. Lee, Donald C. Sheppard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Microbiology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntifungal resistance and susceptibility
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthCystic Fibrosis Canada
KeywordsAspergillus fumigatusCell wallPolysaccharideBiologyMicrobiologyFungusCellImmune systemCell biologyImmunologyBiochemistryBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past several decades, research on the synthesis and organization of the cell wall polysaccharides of Aspergillus fumigatus has expanded our knowledge of this important fungal structure. Besides protecting the fungus from environmental stresses and maintaining structural integrity of the organism, the cell wall is also the primary site for interaction with host tissues during infection. Cell wall polysaccharides are important ligands for the recognition of fungi by the innate immune system and they can mediate potent immunomodulatory effects. The synthesis of cell wall polysaccharides is a complicated process that requires coordinated regulation of many biosynthetic and metabolic pathways. Continuous synthesis and remodeling of the polysaccharides of the cell wall is essential for the survival of the fungus during development, reproduction, colonization and invasion. As these polysaccharides are absent from the human host, these biosynthetic pathways are attractive targets for antifungal development. In this review, we present recent advances in our understanding of Aspergillus fumigatus cell wall polysaccharides, including the emerging role of cell wall polysaccharides in the host-pathogen interaction.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 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

Citations82
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of MicrobiologySame topicAntifungal resistance and susceptibilityFrench-language works237,207