Virus-induced asthma attack: The importance of allergic inflammation in response to viral antigen in an animal model of asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asthma exacerbation can be a life-threatening condition, and is most often triggered by common respiratory viruses. Poor asthma control and worsening of respiratory function is associated with increased airway inflammation, including eosinophilia. Prevention of asthma exacerbation relies on treatment with corticosteroids, which preferentially inhibit allergic inflammation like eosinophils. Human studies demonstrate that inactivated virus can trigger eosinophil activation in vitro through antigen presentation and memory CD4+ lymphocytes. We hypothesized that animals with immunologic memory to a respiratory virus would also develop airway hyperresponsiveness in response to a UV-inactivated form of the virus if they have pre-existing allergic airway inflammation. Guinea pigs were ovalbumin-sensitized, infected with live parainfluenza virus (PIV), aerosol-challenged with ovalbumin, and then re-inoculated 60 days later with live or UV-inactivated PIV. Some animals were either treated with dexamethasone prior to the second viral exposure. Lymphocytes were isolated from parabronchial lymph nodes to confirm immunologic memory to the virus. Airway reactivity was measured and inflammation was assessed using bronchoalveolar lavage and lung histology. The induction of viral immunologic memory was confirmed in infected animals. Allergen sensitized and challenged animals developed airway hyperreactivity with eosinophilic airway inflammation when re-exposed to UV-inactivated PIV, while non-sensitized animals did not. Airway hyperreactivity in the sensitized animals was inhibited by pre-treatment with dexamethasone. We suggest that the response of allergic inflammation to virus antigen is a significant factor causing asthma exacerbation. We propose that this is one mechanism explaining how corticosteroids prevent virus-induced asthma attack.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".