Cellular immune responses to recurring influenza strains have limited boosting ability and limited cross-reactivity to other strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Influenza vaccine provides protection against infection with matched strains, and this protection correlates with serum antibody titres. In addition to antibodies, influenza-specific CD8+ T-lymphocyte responses are important in decreasing disease severity and facilitating viral clearance. Because this response is directed at internal, relatively conserved antigens, it affords some cross-protection within a given subtype of influenza virus. With the possibility of a broader A(H1N1) Mexico outbreak in the fall of 2009, it appeared worthwhile studying the degree of cellular immune response-mediated cross-reactivity among influenza virus isolates. The composition of the 2006–2007 influenza vaccine included the A/New Caledonia/20/1999 strain (comprising a virus that has been circulating, and was included in vaccine preparations, for 6–7 years) and two strains not previously included (Wisconsin and Malaysia). This combination afforded us the opportunity to determine the degree of cross-reactive cellular immunity after exposure to new viral strains. We analysed the antibody responses and the phenotype and function of the T cell response to vaccine components. The results obtained show that antibody responses to A/New-Caledonia were already high and vaccination did not increase antibody or cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses. These data suggest that repeated exposure to the same influenza stain results in limited boosting of humoral and cellular immune responses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".