MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1957670006 · doi:10.1002/eji.201445015

CCRL1/ACKR4 is expressed in key thymic microenvironments but is dispensable for T lymphopoiesis at steady state in adult mice

2014· article· en· W1957670006 on OpenAlexaff
Beth Lucas, Andrea J. White, Maria H. Ulvmar, Robert J. B. Nibbs, Katarzyna Sitnik, William W. Agace, William E. Jenkinson, Graham Anderson, Antal Rot

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Immunology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemokine receptors and signaling
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsBiologyLymphopoiesisKey (lock)Cell biologyImmunologyState (computer science)HaematopoiesisEcologyStem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations32
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of ImmunologySame topicChemokine receptors and signalingFrench-language works237,207