Rhinovirus has the unique ability to activate CD4 and CD8 T-cells, in the absence of Antigen-Presenting Cells (49.26)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We hypothesize eosinophils (EOS) are key effector cells in asthma exacerbations caused by virus.We have shown that T-cells incubated with airway viruses activate eosinophil degranulation in vitro,after antigen-presentation (AP).Our recent data suggests Rhinovirus (RV) has the unique ability to activate T-cells directly.METHODS.Human blood monocyte-derived dendritic cells (moDC) were cultured with Respiratory Syncytial virus (RSV) or Rhinovirus (RV),washed and autologous T-cells and EOS were added.To inhibit AP,some moDC were treated with chloroquine during virus exposure.Also,T-cells alone (CD4+,CD8+,or mixed) were exposed to virus.Proliferation was measured by BrdU-ELISA and apoptosis by flowcytometry.EOS cysteinyl-leukotriene (Cys-LT) release was measured by ELISA.We also used agonists for TLR (2,3,4,7,8).RESULTS.RV induced Cys-LT release from EOS cultured with T-cells (n=6,p<0.001).Virus-moDC induced T-cell proliferation but,unlike RSV,RV was chloroquine-insensitive (n=5,p<0.001).T-cells alone showed proliferation (n=3-7,p<0.01) and apoptosis (n=4,p<0.001) with RV but not with UV-inactivated RV,or RSV.Proliferation was time-(n=3,p<0.01) and dose-(n=2) dependent.CD8 T-cells showed higher proliferation (n=2) and cell death (n=4,p<0.001) than CD4.TLR agonists alone did not induce T-cell proliferation.CONCLUSIONS.Results suggest RSV and RV induce T-cell activation differentially.Our data may help understand why RV is a potent inducer of asthma exacerbation in allergic patients
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".