MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112978058 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.2001086

Simultaneous Aerosol and Intramuscular Immunization with Influenza Vaccine Induces Powerful Protective Local T Cell and Systemic Antibody Immune Responses in Pigs

2020· article· en· W3112978058 on OpenAlexaff
Veronica Martini, Basudev Paudyal, Tiphany Chrun, Adam McNee, Matthew Edmans, Emmanuel A. Maze, Beckie Clark, Alejandro Núñez, Garry Dolton, Andrew K. Sewell, Peter C. L. Beverley, Ronan MacLoughlin, Alain Townsend, Elma Tchilian

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Virus Infections Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilChinese Academy of Medical Sciences
KeywordsImmunizationImmune systemInfluenza vaccineImmunologyAntibodyMedicineIntramuscular injectionVirologyVaccinationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A vaccine providing both powerful Ab and cross-reactive T cell immune responses against influenza viruses would be beneficial for both humans and pigs. In this study, we evaluated i.m., aerosol (Aer), and simultaneous systemic and respiratory immunization (SIM) by both routes in Babraham pigs, using the single cycle candidate influenza vaccine S-FLU. After prime and boost immunization, pigs were challenged with H1N1pdm09 virus. i.m.-immunized pigs generated a high titer of neutralizing Abs but poor T cell responses, whereas Aer induced powerful respiratory tract T cell responses but a low titer of Abs. SIM pigs combined high Ab titers and strong local T cell responses. SIM showed the most complete suppression of virus shedding and the greatest improvement in pathology. We conclude that SIM regimes for immunization against respiratory pathogens warrant further study.

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 score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations34
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicAnimal Virus Infections StudiesFrench-language works237,207