The ectodomains of the lymphocyte scavenger receptors CD5 and CD6 interact with tegumental antigens from Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato and protect mice against secondary cystic echinococcosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Scavenger Receptors (SRs) from the host's innate immune system are known to bind multiple ligands to promote the removal of non-self or altered-self targets. CD5 and CD6 are two highly homologous class I SRs mainly expressed on all T cells and the B1a cell subset, and involved in the fine tuning of activation and differentiation signals delivered by the antigen-specific receptors (TCR and BCR, respectively), to which they physically associate. Additionally, CD5 and CD6 have been shown to interact with and sense the presence of conserved pathogen-associated structures from bacteria, fungi and/or viruses. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We report herein the interaction of CD5 and CD6 lymphocyte surface receptors with Echinococcus granulosus sensu lato (s.l.). Binding studies show that both soluble and membrane-bound forms of CD5 and CD6 bind to intact viable protoscoleces from E. granulosus s.l. through recognition of metaperiodate-resistant tegumental components. Proteomic analyses allowed identification of thioredoxin peroxidase for CD5, and peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase (cyclophilin) and endophilin B1 (antigen P-29) for CD6, as their potential interactors. Further in vitro assays demonstrate that membrane-bound or soluble CD5 and CD6 forms differentially modulate the pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokine release induced following peritoneal cells exposure to E. granulosus s.l. tegumental components. Importantly, prophylactic infusion of soluble CD5 or CD6 significantly ameliorated the infection outcome in the mouse model of secondary cystic echinococcosis. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Taken together, the results expand the pathogen binding properties of CD5 and CD6 and provide novel evidence for their therapeutic potential in human cystic echinococcosis.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".