MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008549544 · doi:10.1080/09540105.2020.1733495

Recombinant <i>Lactococcus lactis</i> co-expressing dendritic cell target peptide and <i>E. tenella</i> 3-1E protein: immune response and efficacy against homologous challenge

2020· article· en· W3008549544 on OpenAlexaff
Guanghao Li, Chunli Ma, Dian Wang, Wenjing Chen, Dexing Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueFood and Agricultural Immunology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCoccidia and coccidiosis research
Canadian institutionsScience North
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLactococcus lactisRecombinant DNABiologyImmune systemMicrobiologySpleenImmunityT cellPathogenVirologyImmunologyBacteriaBiochemistryGeneLactic acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, recombinant L. lactis NZ9000 displaying anchored dendritic cell-targeting peptide (DCpep) and E. tenella 3-1E protein was constructed. Chickens were orally immunized with the recombinant lactococci for three times at 2-week intervals. After three immunizations, chickens were challenged with E. tenella sporulated oocyst, and the immune response and protective efficacy were evaluated. The finding from animal experiments showed recombinant lactococci expressing anchored DCpep-3-1E protein elicited higher levels of 3-1E specific serum IgG and secretory IgA (sIgA) in caecal lavage, higher proportions of CD4+ and CD8α+ cells in peripheral blood, and higher mRNA expression levels of IL-2 and IFN-γ in the spleen compared to 3-1E-expressing lactococci, and hence offered obvious protective efficacy against homologous challenge. The present work demonstrated that cell surface-displayed target protein and immune enhancers in lactococci may be a promising approach to enhance immunity and immune efficacy against pathogen 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood and Agricultural ImmunologySame topicCoccidia and coccidiosis researchFrench-language works237,207