Eosinophils respond to, but are not essential for control of an acute <i>Salmonella enterica</i> serovar Typhimurium infection in mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Eosinophils are a highly abundant cell type in the gastrointestinal tract during homeostatic conditions, where they have recently been reported to take on an activated phenotype following colonization by the bacterial microbiota. To date, there have been few studies investigating whether eosinophils respond to infection with enteric bacterial pathogens and/or investigating the requirements for eosinophils for effective bacterial pathogen control. In this study, we investigated the response of eosinophils to an acute enteric infection of mice with the bacterial pathogen Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. We also assessed whether eosinophil deficiency impacted Salmonella burdens in the intestinal tract or impacted the systemic dissemination of Salmonella following an oral infection of littermate wild-type BALB/cJ and eosinophil-deficient ΔdblGATA BALB/cJ mice. We found comparable Salmonella burdens in the intestinal tract of wild-type and eosinophil-deficient mice and no significant differences in the levels of Salmonella disseminating to systemic organs within 3 days of infection. Despite our evidence suggesting that eosinophils are not an essential cell type for controlling bacterial burdens in this acute infection setting, we found higher levels of eosinophils in gut-draining lymph nodes following infection, indicating that eosinophils do respond to Salmonella infection. Our data contribute to the growing evidence that eosinophils are responsive to bacterial stimuli, yet the influence of and requirements for eosinophils during bacterial infection appear to be highly context-dependent.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".