MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410906474 · doi:10.1101/2025.05.26.656177

IFITM3 deficient mice as a model for testing influenza virus vaccines

2025· preprint· en· W4410906474 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian C. Eddy, Samuel Speaks, Emily A. Hemann, Jacob S. Yount

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsVirologyVaccinationVirusImmune systemImmunologyMedicineViral replicationInfluenza A virus subtype H5N1Influenza vaccineAntibody responseAntibodyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Influenza virus infections remain a significant global health concern. Development of a universal influenza vaccine has been met with challenges, in part due to difficulties with preclinical vaccine testing in mice, which are widely available but are often poorly infected with human and avian influenza viruses. Here, we investigate whether mice lacking interferon-induced transmembrane protein 3 (IFITM3), an antiviral restriction factor, provide a suitable preclinical model for vaccine testing since we observe enhanced replication of multiple influenza virus strains in these mice. We find that IFITM3 KO mice produce a blunted antibody response to intramuscular vaccination that is increased by a booster dose. Nonetheless, their adaptive immune responses to previous infections and vaccinations were found to be functional in limiting morbidity or viral replication in challenge studies. Overall, our findings identify IFITM3 KO mice as an accessible, functionally immunocompetent preclinical model for assessment of influenza vaccines.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicInfluenza Virus Research Studies→French-language works237,207→