MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225391816 · doi:10.1038/s42003-022-03367-z

IL-25 blockade augments antiviral immunity during respiratory virus infection

2022· article· en· W4225391816 on OpenAlexaff
Teresa C. Williams, Su-Ling Loo, Kristy Nichol, Andrew T. Reid, Punnam Chander Veerati, Camille Esneau, Peter Wark, Christopher Grainge, Darryl A. Knight, Thomas L. Vincent, Crystal Lyles Jackson, K Alton, Richard A. Shimkets, Jason Girkin, Nathan W. Bartlett

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaProvidence Health Care Research InstituteProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunologyInnate immune systemRhinovirusImmunityImmune systemBiologyVirusCytokineVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IL-25 is implicated in the pathogenesis of viral asthma exacerbations. However, the effect of IL-25 on antiviral immunity has yet to be elucidated. We observed abundant expression and colocalization of IL-25 and IL-25 receptor at the apical surface of uninfected airway epithelial cells and rhinovirus infection increased IL-25 expression. Analysis of immune transcriptome of rhinovirus-infected differentiated asthmatic bronchial epithelial cells (BECs) treated with an anti-IL-25 monoclonal antibody (LNR125) revealed a re-calibrated response defined by increased type I/III IFN and reduced expression of type-2 immune genes CCL26, IL1RL1 and IL-25 receptor. LNR125 treatment also increased type I/III IFN expression by coronavirus infected BECs. Exogenous IL-25 treatment increased viral load with suppressed innate immunity. In vivo LNR125 treatment reduced IL-25/type 2 cytokine expression and increased IFN-β expression and reduced lung viral load. We define a new immune-regulatory role for IL-25 that directly inhibits virus induced airway epithelial cell innate anti-viral immunity.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations30
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications BiologySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207