MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399518114 · doi:10.1101/2024.06.11.598517

BASOPHILS ACTIVATE PRURICEPTOR-LIKE VAGAL SENSORY NEURONS

2024· preprint· en· W4399518114 on OpenAlexaff
Jo-Chiao Wang, Amin Reza Nikpoor, Théo Crosson, Eva Kaufmann, Moutih Rafei, Sébastien Talbot

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOncostatin MVagus nerveSensory systemNeuroscienceBrainstemImmunologyCockroachMedicineBiologyCytokineStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Vagal sensory neurons convey sensations from internal organs along the vagus nerve to the brainstem. Pruriceptors are a subtype of neurons that transmit itch and induce pruritus. Despite extensive research on the molecular mechanisms of itch, studies focusing on pruriceptors in the vagal ganglia still need to be explored. In this study, we characterized vagal pruriceptor neurons by their responsiveness to pruritogens such as lysophosphatidic acid, β -alanine, chloroquine, and the cytokine oncostatin M. We discovered that lung-resident basophils produce oncostatin M and that its release can be induced by engagement of Fc ε RI α . Oncostatin M then sensitizes multiple populations of vagal sensory neurons, including Tac1 + and MrgprA3 + neurons in the jugular ganglia. Finally, we observed an increase in oncostatin M release in mice sensitized to the house dust mite Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus or to the fungal allergen Alternaria alternata , highlighting a novel mechanism through which basophils and vagal sensory neurons may communicate during type I hypersensitivity diseases such as allergic asthma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207