CCRL1/ACKR4 is expressed in key thymic microenvironments but is dispensable for T lymphopoiesis at steady state in adult mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thymus colonisation and thymocyte positioning are regulated by interactions between CCR7 and CCR9, and their respective ligands, CCL19/CCL21 and CCL25. The ligands of CCR7 and CCR9 also interact with the atypical receptor CCRL1 (also known as ACKR4), which is expressed in the thymus and has recently been reported to play an important role in normal αβT-cell development. Here, we show that CCRL1 is expressed within the thymic cortex, predominantly by MHC-II(low) CD40(-) cortical thymic epithelial cells and at the subcapsular zone by a population of podoplanin(+) thymic epithelial cells in mice. Interestingly, CCRL1 is also expressed by stromal cells which surround the pericytes of vessels at the corticomedullary junction, the site for progenitor cell entry and mature thymocyte egress from the thymus. We show that CCRL1 suppresses thymocyte progenitor entry into the thymus, however, the thymus size and cellularity are the same in adult WT and CCRL1(-/-) mice. Moreover, CCRL1(-/-) mice have no major perturbations in T-cell populations at different stages of thymic differentiation and development, and have a similar rate of thymocyte migration into the blood. Collectively, our findings argue against a major role for CCRL1 in normal thymus development and function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".