Host Immune Responses and Immune Evasion Strategies in African Trypanosomiasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parasites, including African trypanosomes, utilize several immune evasion strategies to ensure their survival and completion of their life cycles within their hosts. The defense factors activated by the host to resolve inflammation and restore homeostasis during active infection could be exploited and/or manipulated by the parasites in an attempt to ensure their survival and propagation. This often results in the parasites evading the host immune responses as well as the host sustaining some self-inflicted collateral tissue damage. During infection with African trypanosomes, both effector and suppressor cells are activated and the balance between these opposing arms of immunity determines susceptibility or resistance of infected host to the parasites. Immune evasion by the parasites could be directly related to parasite factors, (e.g. antigenic variation), or indirectly through the induction of suppressor cells following infection. Several cell types, including suppressive macrophages, myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), and regulatory T cells have been shown to contribute to immunosuppression in African trypanosomiasis. In this review, we discuss the key factors that contribute to immunity and immunosuppression during T. congolense infection, and how these factors could aid immune evasion by African trypanosomes. Understanding the regulatory mechanisms that influence resistance and/or susceptibility during African trypanosomiasis could be beneficial in designing effective vaccination and therapeutic strategies against the disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".