MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594418734 · doi:10.1038/srep43776

Ebola virus infection kinetics in chimeric mice reveal a key role of T cells as barriers for virus dissemination

2017· article· en· W2594418734 on OpenAlexafffund
Anja Lüdtke, Paula Ruibal, David M. Wozniak, Elisa Pallasch, Stephanie Wurr, Sabrina Bockholt, Sergio Gómez‐Medina, Xiangguo Qiu, Gary Kobinger, Estefanía Rodríguez, Stephan Günther, Susanne Krasemann, Juliana Idoyaga, Lisa Oestereich, César Muñoz‐Fontela

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Outbreaks Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfLeibniz-GemeinschaftBundesministerium für GesundheitPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of CanadaDeutsches Zentrum für Infektionsforschung
KeywordsVirologyVirusEbola virusBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ebola virus (EBOV) causes severe systemic disease in humans and non-human primates characterized by high levels of viremia and virus titers in peripheral organs. The natural portals of virus entry are the mucosal surfaces and the skin where macrophages and dendritic cells (DCs) are primary EBOV targets. Due to the migratory properties of DCs, EBOV infection of these cells has been proposed as a necessary step for virus dissemination via draining lymph nodes and blood. Here we utilize chimeric mice with competent hematopoietic-driven immunity, to show that EBOV primarily infects CD11b + DCs in non-lymphoid and lymphoid tissues, but spares the main cross-presenting CD103 + DC subset. Furthermore, depletion of CD8 and CD4 T cells resulted in loss of early control of virus replication, viremia and fatal Ebola virus disease (EVD). Thus, our findings point out at T cell function as a key determinant of EVD progress and outcome.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicViral Infections and Outbreaks ResearchFrench-language works237,207