Restraint and Social Isolation Stressors Differentially Regulate Adaptive Immunity and Tumor Angiogenesis in a Breast Cancer Mouse Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of stress to induce immune suppression is widely recognized, but the mechanisms underlying the effects of stress on the adaptive immune system during tumor progression are not completely understood. To study the effect of stress on the immune system in vivo, we used a preclinical immunocompetent mouse model bearing 4T1 mammary adenocarcinoma cells. Mice were randomized into 4 groups, including social isolation (SI), acute restraint stress (aRRS), chronic restraint stress (cRRS), or no stress (NS). We found that SI significantly decreased the number of tumor-bearing mice still alive at the end of protocol (28 days), compared to NS mice. Although we did not detect significant changes in primary tumor volume, we observed a significant increase in the endothelial marker CD31 in primary tumors of SI mice and in lung metastases in SI and RRS mice. Survival decline in SI mice was associated with significant decreases in splenic CD8 cells and in activated T cells. From a mechanistic standpoint, RRS increased expression of FOXP3, CXCL-10, and granzyme B in mouse tumors, and the effects were reversed by propranolol. Our data demonstrate that various forms of stress differentially impact adaptive immunity and tumor angiogenesis, and negatively impact survival.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".