Drosophila immune priming to Enterococcus faecalis relies on immune tolerance rather than resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Innate immune priming increases an organism's survival of a second infection after an initial, non-lethal infection. We used Drosophila melanogaster and an insect-derived strain of Enterococcus faecalis to study transcriptional control of priming. In contrast to other pathogens, the enhanced survival in primed animals does not correlate with decreased E. faecalis load. Further analysis shows that primed organisms tolerate, rather than resist infection. Using RNA-seq of immune tissues, we found many genes were upregulated in only primed flies, suggesting a distinct transcriptional program in response to initial and secondary infections. In contrast, few genes continuously express throughout the experiment or more efficiently re-activate upon reinfection. Priming experiments in immune deficient mutants revealed Imd is largely dispensable for responding to a single infection but needed to fully prime. Together, this indicates the fly's innate immune response is plastic-differing in immune strategy, transcriptional program, and pathway use depending on infection history.
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".