MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1666169447 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.166.2.741

Cutting Edge: Detection of Antigen-Specific CD4+ T Cells by HLA-DR1 Oligomers Is Dependent on the T Cell Activation State

2001· article· en· W1666169447 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas O. Cameron, Jennifer R. Cochran, Bader Yassine‐Diab, Rafick‐Pierre Sékaly, Lawrence J. Stern

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and B-cell Immunology
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHuman leukocyte antigenAntigenEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionCell biologyMolecular biologyChemistryT cellImmunologyBiologyComputer scienceImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Class I MHC tetramers have proven to be invaluable tools for following and deciphering the CD8(+) T cell response, but the development of similar reagents for detection of CD4(+) T cells based on class II MHC proteins has been more difficult. We evaluated fluorescent streptavidin-based oligomers of HLA-DR1 for use as reagents to analyze Ag-specific human CD4(+) T cells. Staining was blocked at low temperatures and by drugs that disrupt microfilament formation and endocytosis. Cell-associated MHC oligomers were resistant to a surface stripping protocol and were observed by microscopy in intracellular compartments. This behavior indicates that detection of CD4(+) T cells using class II MHC oligomers can depend on an active cellular process in which T cells cluster and/or endocytose their Ag receptors. T cells of identical specificity but in different activation states varied greatly in their ability to be detected by class II MHC oligomers.

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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations77
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicT-cell and B-cell ImmunologyFrench-language works237,207