MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1489320194 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.176.2.730

Cutting Edge: Three-Dimensional Architecture of the Thymus Is Required to Maintain Delta-Like Expression Necessary for Inducing T Cell Development

2006· article· en· W1489320194 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmood Mohtashami, Juan Carlos Zúñiga‐Pflücker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and B-cell Immunology
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymphopoiesisStromal cellCell biologyBiologyEctopic expressionT cellNotch signaling pathwayHaematopoiesisImmunologyCancer researchCell cultureStem cellSignal transductionGeneticsImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The three-dimensional microarchitecture of the thymus plays a unique role in directing T cell lineage commitment and development. This is supported by the fact that, in contrast to fetal thymic organ cultures, thymic stromal cell monolayer cultures (TSMC) fail to support T lymphopoiesis. Nevertheless, OP9-DL1 cell monolayer cultures induce T lineage commitment and differentiation. Thus, the inability of TSMC to support T lymphopoiesis may be due to a loss of Notch ligand expression and/or function during culture. In this study, we report that, in contrast to fetal thymic organ cultures, TSMC fail to maintain expression of the Notch ligands, Delta-like (Dll) 1 and Dll4, and concomitantly lose the ability to support T lymphopoiesis. Importantly, ectopic re-expression of Dll1 or Dll4 is sufficient to restore the ability of TSMC to support T lymphopoiesis. These findings demonstrate that maintenance of endogenous Dll1 or Dll4 expression by thymic stromal cells is required for the commitment and differentiation of T cells in the absence of a three-dimensional microenvironment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations102
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicT-cell and B-cell ImmunologyFrench-language works237,207