Host resistance to intranasal<i>Acinetobacter baumannii</i>reinfection in mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acinetobacter baumannii is a major causative agent of healthcare-associated infection and develops multidrug resistance rapidly. However, little is known in the host defense mechanisms against this infection. In this study, we examined if mice recovered from a previous intranasal A. baumannii infection (recovered mice) are fully protected against a subsequent reinfection. We found that, despite the presence of specific serum IgG and mucosal IgA responses prior to the reinfection, the recovered mice were only marginally better protected against intranasal challenge with low doses of homologous or heterologous A. baumannii strains than the naïve mice. Post-challenge immune and inflammatory (cells and cytokines) responses were generally comparable between recovered and naïve mice although the recovered mice produced significantly higher amounts of IFN-γ and IL-17 and had higher percentages and numbers of resident lung CD44(hi)CD62L(-)CD4(+) and CD19(+) B lymphocytes. Taken together, our results suggest that mice recovered from a previous A. baumannii infection remain susceptible to reinfection, indicating the complexity of immune protection mechanism for this Gram-negative, multidrug-resistant emerging pathogen.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".