Innate Immune Responses to Avian Influenza Viruses in Ducks and Chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mallard ducks are important natural hosts of low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) viruses and many strains circulate in this reservoir and cause little harm. Some strains can be transmitted to other hosts, including chickens, and cause respiratory and systemic disease. Rarely, these highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) viruses cause disease in mallards, while chickens are highly susceptible. The long co-evolution of mallard ducks with influenza viruses has undoubtedly fine-tuned many immunological host⁻pathogen interactions to confer resistance to disease, which are poorly understood. Here, we compare innate responses to different avian influenza viruses in ducks and chickens to reveal differences that point to potential mechanisms of disease resistance. Mallard ducks are permissive to LPAI replication in their intestinal tissues without overtly compromising their fitness. In contrast, the mallard response to HPAI infection reflects an immediate and robust induction of type I interferon and antiviral interferon stimulated genes, highlighting the importance of the RIG-I pathway. Ducks also appear to limit the duration of the response, particularly of pro-inflammatory cytokine expression. Chickens lack RIG-I, and some modulators of the signaling pathway and may be compromised in initiating an early interferon response, allowing more viral replication and consequent damage. We review current knowledge about innate response mediators to influenza infection in mallard ducks compared to chickens to gain insight into protective immune responses, and open questions for future research.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".