IL‐4 Induced Expression of CCL26 (Eotaxin‐3) mRNA and Protein in Monocytic Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CCL26/Eotaxin‐3, a member of the CC chemokine family, is an agonist for chemokine receptor CCR3. Published data have recently shown that CCL26 also acts as an antagonist for CCR1, CCR2 and CCR5, unlike other members of the eotaxin family (CCL11/Eotaxin and CCL24/Eotaxin‐2). During inflammation, recruited cells such as monocytes and eosinophils are important sources of chemokines and these cells also possess the receptors acted on by CCL26. Upregulation of CCL26 by IL‐4 has been shown to be STAT6 dependent in human fibroblasts, as well as in intestinal and airway epithelial cells. Using real time PCR techniques, we have shown that IL‐4 induces expression of CCL26 mRNA in human monocytes, monocyte‐derived macrophages and U937 cells; however, CCL26 mRNA expression was not induced by other pro‐inflammatory cytokines such as IFNγ, TNFα or IL‐1β. As expected, IL‐4 stimulation of these cells resulted in time dependent phosphorylation of STAT6. IL‐4 also induced concentration and time dependent secretion of CCL26 in U937 cells. Furthermore, IL‐4 acted synergistically with TNFα and IL‐1β resulting in elevated levels of CCL26 secretion, while co‐stimulation of IL‐4 with IFNγ attenuated CCL26 secretion. Interestingly, the levels of CCL26 mRNA and CCL26 release in cells pre‐treated with IFNgamma; prior to IL‐4 stimulation were reduced, suggesting that IFNγ acts as a negative regulator of IL‐4 induced CCL26 gene expression. These data demonstrate that modulation of CCL26 expression is different from other members of the eotaxin family. Collectively the data suggest that CCL26 plays a distinct biological role in allergic and bowel inflammation. The Alzheimer Society of Canada and the CIHR Institute of Ageing jointly fund this project
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".