The Endogenous Th17 Response in NO<inf>2</inf>-Promoted Allergic Airway Disease Is Dispensable for Airway Hyperresponsiveness and Distinct from Th17 Adoptive Transfer

Severe, glucocorticoid-resistant asthma comprises 5-7% of patients with asthma. IL-17 is a biomarker of severe asthma, and the adoptive transfer of Th17 cells in mice is sufficient to induce glucocorticoid-resistant allergic airway disease. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is an environmental toxin that correlates with asthma severity, exacerbation, and risk of adverse outcomes. Mice that are allergically sensitized to the antigen ovalbumin by exposure to NO2 exhibit a mixed Th2/Th17 adaptive immune response and eosinophil and neutrophil recruitment to the airway following antigen challenge, a phenotype reminiscent of severe clinical asthma. Because IL-1 receptor (IL-1R) signaling is critical in the generation of the Th17 response in vivo, we hypothesized that the IL-1R/Th17 axis contributes to pulmonary inflammation and airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) in NO2-promoted allergic airway disease and manifests in glucocorticoid-resistant cytokine production. IL-17A neutralization at the time of antigen challenge or genetic deficiency in IL-1R resulted in decreased neutrophil recruitment to the airway following antigen challenge but did not protect against the development of AHR. Instead, IL-1R-/- mice developed exacerbated AHR compared to WT mice. Lung cells from NO2-allergically inflamed mice that were treated in vitro with dexamethasone (Dex) during antigen restimulation exhibited reduced Th17 cytokine production, whereas Th17 cytokine production by lung cells from recipient mice of in vitro Th17-polarized OTII T-cells was resistant to Dex. These results demonstrate that the IL-1R/Th17 axis does not contribute to AHR development in NO2-promoted allergic airway disease, that Th17 adoptive transfer does not necessarily reflect an endogenously-generated Th17 response, and that functions of Th17 responses are contingent on the experimental conditions in which they are generated. © 2013 Martin et al

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency–Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research

Transmission networks of SARS-CoV-2 in Coastal Kenya during the first two waves: a retrospective genomic study

Background: Detailed understanding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) regional transmission networks within sub-Saharan Africa is key for guiding local public health interventions against the pandemic. Methods: Here, we analysed 1139 SARS-CoV-2 genomes from positive samples collected between March 2020 and February 2021 across six counties of Coastal Kenya (Mombasa, Kilifi, Taita Taveta, Kwale, Tana River, and Lamu) to infer virus introductions and local transmission patterns during the first two waves of infections. Virus importations were inferred using ancestral state reconstruction, and virus dispersal between counties was estimated using discrete phylogeographic analysis. Results: During Wave 1, 23 distinct Pango lineages were detected across the six counties, while during Wave 2, 29 lineages were detected; 9 of which occurred in both waves and 4 seemed to be Kenya specific (B.1.530, B.1.549, B.1.596.1, and N.8). Most of the sequenced infections belonged to lineage B.1 (n = 723, 63%), which predominated in both Wave 1 (73%, followed by lineages N.8 [6%] and B.1.1 [6%]) and Wave 2 (56%, followed by lineages B.1.549 [21%] and B.1.530 [5%]). Over the study period, we estimated 280 SARS-CoV-2 virus importations into Coastal Kenya. Mombasa City, a vital tourist and commercial centre for the region, was a major route for virus imports, most of which occurred during Wave 1, when many Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) government restrictions were still in force. In Wave 2, inter-county transmission predominated, resulting in the emergence of local transmission chains and diversity. Conclusions: Our analysis supports moving COVID-19 control strategies in the region from a focus on international travel to strategies that will reduce local transmission. Funding: This work was funded by The Wellcome (grant numbers: 220985, 203077/Z/16/Z, 220977/Z/20/Z, and 222574/Z/21/Z) and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), project references: 17/63/and 16/136/33 using UK Aid from the UK government to support global health research, The UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the funding agencies