MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biofilm Derived Legionella pneumophila Evades the Innate Immune Response in Macrophages

2013· article· en· W3174046172 on OpenAlexaff
Arwa Abu Khweek, Amal O. Amer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLegionella and Acanthamoeba research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegionella pneumophilaBiofilmMicrobiologyInnate immune systemImmune systemLegionellaBiologyLegionnaires' diseaseOrganismBacteriaImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Legionella pneumophila, a causative agent of Legionnaire's disease, replicates in human alveolar macrophages and establish infection in humans. There is no human to human transmission and the main source of infection is L. pneumophila biofilms established in air conditioners and water fountains. Biofilm structure provides protection for the organism from disinfectants and antibacterial agents. L. pneumophila infection in humans is characterized by subtle initial immune response giving time for the organism to establish infection before the patient succumbs to pneumonia. Planktonic L. pneumophila elicits a strong immune response in murine but not in human macrophages. The objective of this study is to elucidate the interface between biofilm‐derived L. pneumophila and macrophages. Using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and Western blotting, we demonstrate that in contrast to planktonic bacteria, biofilm‐derived L. pneumophila differentially manipulate the innate immune response and the killing mechanisms employed by murine macrophages, thus establishing successful infection. This study advances our understanding to the innate immune response to biofilm‐derived L. pneumophila and closely reproduces the natural mode of infection in human. Studies is Dr. Amal Amer's laboratory are supported by grant R01HL094586

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicLegionella and Acanthamoeba researchFrench-language works237,207