MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163689838 · doi:10.1111/febs.15910

Microbial recognition regulates intestinal epithelial growth in homeostasis and disease

2021· review· en· W3163689838 on OpenAlexafffund
Meghan Ferguson, Edan Foley

Bibliographic record

VenueFEBS Journal · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicInvertebrate Immune Response Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyImmune systemCell biologyIntestinal epitheliumZebrafishMicrobiomeHomeostasisPattern recognition receptorSignal transductionInnate immune systemImmunologyEpitheliumGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intestine is constantly exposed to a dynamic community of microbes. Intestinal epithelial cells respond to microbes through evolutionarily conserved recognition pathways, such as the immune deficiency (IMD) pathway of Drosophila, the Toll-like receptor (TLR) response of flies and vertebrates, and the vertebrate nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain (NOD) pathway. Microbial recognition pathways are tightly controlled to respond effectively to pathogens, tolerate the microbiome, and limit intestinal disease. In this review, we focus on contributions of different model organisms to our understanding of how epithelial microbe recognition impacts intestinal proliferation and differentiation in homeostasis and disease. In particular, we compare how microbes and subsequent recognition by the intestine influences barrier integrity, intestinal repair and tumorigenesis in Drosophila, zebrafish, mice, and organoids. In addition, we discuss the importance of microbial recognition in homeostatic intestinal growth and discuss how immune pathways directly impact stem cell and crypt dynamics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEBS JournalSame topicInvertebrate Immune Response MechanismsFrench-language works237,207