Abrupt Expression of TLR4 in TLR4-Deficient Macrophages Imposes a Selective Disadvantage: Genetic Evidence for TLR4-Dependent Responses to Endogenous, Nonmicrobial Stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TLR4 is crucial for macrophage responses to LPS. It is less clear whether TLR4 may also transduce signals from host factors, and if so, with what consequences. Immortalized bone marrow-derived macrophage cell lines, termed T4Cr and T4ko, were established from TLR4null strains, C57BL/10ScNCr and TLR4 knockout mice, respectively. Multiple transfections and selections were conducted to stably introduce TLR4 into these cell lines. Among 196 individual clones isolated, 48 expressed TLR4 on the cell surface but did not respond to LPS due to a deletion in the MyD88 gene. The remaining clones integrated TLR4 DNA into the genome but expressed neither detectable TLR4 mRNA nor TLR4 protein. To test the possibility that TLR4null cells lack modulating factors to protect against a harmful effect of TLR4, 15 stably transfected clones were generated in the presence of conditioned media from wild-type macrophages. Some of these cells expressed a small amount of TLR4 and regained responsiveness to LPS. Because no microbial ligands were available to the cell lines during their generation, signaling via endogenous ligands is likely to have occurred in TLR4-expressing, signal-competent macrophages and imposed a proliferative or other selective disadvantage. These studies support the existence of constitutive signaling via TLR4 during in vitro culture of macrophages without microbial products, and help account for the lack of reports of restoration of TLR4 expression in normally TLR4-expressing types of cells in vitro whose TLR4 genes are deleted or disrupted.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".