Anti-endotoxin properties of cationic host defence peptides and proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The innate immune system of mammals contains a series of peptides with overall positive charge and an amphipathic structure which have a variety of important properties in host defences. Although these are often termed cationic antimicrobial peptides, they have numerous roles in innate defences in all complex species of life and thus we prefer to refer to them as host defence peptides. These roles include: (i) an ability to kill micro-organisms directly, ranging from bacteria to viruses, fungi, parasites and helminths; (ii) an adjuvant activity in the adaptive response; and (iii) a multiplicity of roles in modulating innate immunity, including an apparent ability to stimulate protective innate immunity while suppressing harmful inflammatory/septic responses. This latter property may be one of the more important activities of these peptides in vivo. Innate immunity is thought to be triggered by the interaction of conserved bacterial components with particular receptors including Toll-like receptors (TLRs) on host cells. However, the initiation of the innate immune response through this route may trigger a pro-inflammatory cascade that is the principle cause of harmful conditions such as sepsis. Since we are exposed to potentially dangerous pathogens on a daily basis, the host response must contain certain checks and balances. We propose that host defence peptides have a role in feed-back modulation of inflammation under normal (low-pathogen exposure) conditions. This review surveys the available information regarding the antiendotoxic/anti-inflammatory properties of host defence peptides, and will address whether this potential might be exploited for therapeutic benefit in sepsis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".