Characterization of ENM Dynamic Dose-Dependent MOA in Lung with Respect to Immune Cells Infiltration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The molecular effects of exposures to engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) are still largely unknown. In classical inhalation toxicology, cell composition of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is a toxicity indicator at the lung tissue level that can aid in interpreting pulmonary histological changes. Toxicogenomic approaches help characterize the mechanism of action (MOA) of ENMs by investigating the differentially expressed genes (DEG). However, dissecting which molecular mechanisms and events are directly induced by the exposure is not straightforward. It is now generally accepted that direct effects follow a monotonic dose-dependent pattern. Here, we applied an integrated modeling approach to study the MOA of four ENMs by retrieving the DEGs that also show a dynamic dose-dependent profile (dddtMOA). We further combined the information of the dddtMOA with the dose dependency of four immune cell populations derived from BAL counts. The dddtMOA analysis highlighted the specific adaptation pattern to each ENM. Furthermore, it revealed the distinct effect of the ENM physicochemical properties on the induced immune response. Finally, we report three genes dose-dependent in all the exposures and correlated with immune deregulation in the lung. The characterization of dddtMOA for ENM exposures, both for apical endpoints and molecular responses, can further promote toxicogenomic approaches in a regulatory context.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".