A Switch in Costimulation from CD28 to 4-1BB during Primary versus Secondary CD8 T Cell Response to Influenza In Vivo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4-1BBL(-/-) mice exhibit normal primary CD8 T cell responses to influenza virus, but show decreased CD8 T cell numbers late in the primary response as well as decreased secondary responses. In contrast, CD28(-/-) mice are defective in initial CD8 T cell expansion. Using agonistic anti-4-1BB Ab to replace the CD28 or 4-1BB signal, we examined the timing of the required signals for CD28 vs 4-1BB costimulation. A single dose of agonistic anti-4-1BB Ab added only during priming restores the secondary CD8 T cell response in CD28(-/-) mice. Once the T cell numbers in the primary response reach a minimum threshold, a full secondary response is achieved even in the absence of CD28. In contrast, anti-4-1BB added during priming fails to correct the defective secondary response in 4-1BBL(-/-) mice, whereas addition of anti-4-1BB during challenge fully restores this response. Thus, there is a switch in costimulatory requirement from CD28 to 4-1BB during primary vs recall responses. Adoptive transfer studies show that T cells primed in 4-1BBL(-/-) or wild-type mice are equally capable of re-expansion when rechallenged in wild-type mice. These studies rule out a model in which signals delivered through 4-1BB during priming program the T cells to give a full recall response and suggest that 4-1BB-4-1BBL interactions take place at later stages in the immune response. The results indicate that anti-4-1BB or 4-1BBL therapy will be most effective during the boost phase of a prime-boost vaccination strategy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".