MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1618164626 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.167.1.384

Dendritic Cells Recruitment and In Vivo Priming of CD8+ CTL Induced by a Single Topical or Transepithelial Immunization Via the Buccal Mucosa with Measles Virus Nucleoprotein

2001· article· en· W1618164626 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie Etchart, Pierre-Olivier Desmoulins, Karine Chemin, Charles R. Maliszewski, Bertrand Dubois, Fabian Wild, Dominique Kaiserlian

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsResearch & Development Corporation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCTL*Priming (agriculture)ImmunologyBiologyAdoptive cell transferBuccal administrationCD8In vivoDendritic cellVirologyImmune systemT cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The buccal mucosa, a prototype of pluristratified mucosal epithelia, contains a network of directly accessible class II(+) epithelial dendritic cells (DC), similar to skin Langerhans cells. We showed that a single buccal immunization with measles virus nucleoprotein (NP), by either topical application onto or intradermal injection in the buccal mucosa, induced in vivo priming of protective class I-restricted specific CD8(+) CTL. Both routes of immunization with NP induced a rapid recruitment of DC into the mucosa, which peaked at 2 h and decreased by 24 h. Treatment of mice with Flt3 ligand resulted in an increased number of DC in the buccal mucosa and enhanced the frequency of IFN-gamma-producing NP-specific effectors and the NP-specific CTL response generated after buccal immunization with NP. Finally, NP-pulsed bone marrow-derived DC induced NP-specific IFN-gamma-producing cells upon adoptive transfer to naive mice. These data demonstrate that a viral protein delivered to DC of the buccal mucosa induces in vivo priming of protective anti-viral CD8(+) CTL.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations54
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207