MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608670027 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.1602131

Cutting Edge: A Dual TLR2 and TLR7 Ligand Induces Highly Potent Humoral and Cell-Mediated Immune Responses

2017· article· en· W2608670027 on OpenAlexaff
Alice Gutjahr, Laura Papagno, Francesco Nicoli, Alain Lamoureux, Fabienne Vernejoul, Thierry Lioux, Emma Gostick, David A. Price, Gérard Tiraby, Éric Pérouzel, Victor Appay, Bernard Verrier, Stéphane Paul

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Response and Inflammation
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsTLR7TLR2Immune systemDual (grammatical number)Ligand (biochemistry)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionCell biologyImmunologyBiologyChemistryReceptorToll-like receptorInnate immune systemGeneticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract TLR agonists are currently being developed and tested as adjuvants in various formulations to optimize the immunogenicity and efficacy of vaccines. The aim of this study was to evaluate the immunostimulatory properties of a novel compound incorporating covalently linked moieties designed to stimulate both TLR2 and TLR7. This dual TLR2/TLR7 agonist induced the maturation of dendritic cells and primed substantial populations of cytolytic and highly polyfunctional effector CD8+ T cells in vitro, and safely potentiated the immunogenic properties of a nanoparticulate Ag in vivo, eliciting humoral responses with a balanced TH1/TH2 profile in mice. Collectively, these data reveal the potential utility of chimeric adjuvants with synergistic activities mediated via TLRs.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations42
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicImmune Response and InflammationFrench-language works237,207