Leishmania infantum lipophosphoglycan induced-Prostaglandin E2 production in association with PPAR-γ expression via activation of Toll like receptors-1 and 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Lipophosphoglycan (LPG) is a key virulence factor expressed on the surfaces of Leishmania promastigotes. Although LPG is known to activate macrophages, the underlying mechanisms resulting in the production of prostaglandin E 2 (PGE 2 ) via signaling pathways remain unknown. Here, the inflammatory response arising from stimulation by Leishmania infantum LPG and/or its lipid and glycan motifs was evaluated with regard to PGE 2 induction. Intact LPG, but not its glycan and lipid moieties, induced a range of proinflammatory responses, including PGE 2 and nitric oxide (NO) release, increased lipid droplet formation, and iNOS and COX2 expression. LPG also induced ERK-1/2 and JNK phosphorylation in macrophages, in addition to the release of PGE 2 , MCP-1, IL-6, TNF-α and IL-12p70, but not IL-10. Pharmacological inhibition of ERK1/2 and PKC affected PGE 2 and cytokine production. Moreover, treatment with rosiglitazone, an agonist of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR-γ), also modulated the release of PGE 2 and other proinflammatory mediators. Finally, we determined that LPG-induced PPAR-γ signaling occurred via TLR1/2. Taken together, these results reinforce the role played by L . infantum- derived LPG in the proinflammatory response seen in Leishmania infection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".