MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1504272933 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.174.12.8072

Monocyte Adhesion to Xenogeneic Endothelium during Laminar Flow Is Dependent on α-Gal-Mediated Monocyte Activation

2005· article· en· W1504272933 on OpenAlexaff
Mark D. Peterson, Rongyu Jin, Sharon J. Hyduk, Pascal Duchesneau, Myron I. Cybulsky, Thomas K. Waddell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicXenotransplantation and immune response
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonocyteCell biologyIntegrinEndotheliumCell adhesion moleculeReceptorAdhesionCell adhesionImmunologyChemistryBiologyBiochemistryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monocytes are the predominant inflammatory cell recruited to xenografts and participate in delayed xenograft rejection. In contrast to allogeneic leukocytes that require up-regulation of endothelial adhesion molecules to adhere and emigrate into effector tissues, we demonstrate that human monocytes adhere rapidly to unstimulated xenogeneic endothelial cells. The major xenoantigen galactosealpha(1,3)galactosebeta(1,4)GlcNAc-R (alpha-gal) is abundantly expressed on xenogeneic endothelium. We have identified a putative receptor for alpha-gal on human monocytes that is a member of the C-type family of lectin receptors. Monocyte arrest under physiological flow conditions is regulated by alpha-gal, because cleavage or blockade results in a dramatic reduction in monocyte adhesion. Recruitment of human monocytes to unactivated xenogeneic endothelial cells requires both alpha(4) and beta(2) integrins on the monocyte; binding of alpha-gal to monocytes results in rapid activation of beta(2), but not alpha(4), integrins. Thus, activation of monocyte beta(2) integrins by alpha-gal expressed on xenogeneic endothelium provides a mechanism that may explain the dramatic accumulation of monocytes in vivo.

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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations31
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicXenotransplantation and immune responseFrench-language works237,207