MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1605178114 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.168.8.3777

Temporal Segregation of 4-1BB Versus CD28-Mediated Costimulation: 4-1BB Ligand Influences T Cell Numbers Late in the Primary Response and Regulates the Size of the T Cell Memory Response Following Influenza Infection

2002· article· en· W1605178114 on OpenAlexaff
Edward M. Bertram, Peggy Lau, Tania H. Watts

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Cell Function and Interaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCD28Cytotoxic T cellT cellCD8BiologyCTL*Memory T cellImmunologyInfluenza A virusCell biologyVirusImmune systemIn vitroBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this report, we demonstrate that CD28(-/-) mice are severely impaired in the initial expansion of D(b)/NP366-374-specific CD8 T cells in response to influenza virus infection, whereas 4-1BB ligand (4-1BBL)(-/-) mice show no defect in primary T cell expansion to influenza virus. In contrast, 4-1BBL(-/-) mice show a decrease in D(b)/NP366-374-specific T cells late in the primary response. Upon secondary challenge with influenza virus, 4-1BBL(-/-) mice show a decrease in the number of D(b)/NP366-374-specific T cells compared to wild-type mice such that the level of the CD8 T cell expansion during the in vivo secondary response is reduced to the level of a primary response, with concomitant reduction of CTL effector function. In contrast, Ab responses, as well as secondary CD4 T cell responses, to influenza are unaffected by 4-1BBL deficiency. Thus, CD28 is critical for initial T cell expansion, whereas 4-1BB/4-1BBL signaling affects T cell numbers much later in the response and is essential for the survival and/or responsiveness of the memory CD8 T cell pool.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations267
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicImmune Cell Function and InteractionFrench-language works237,207