2<scp>D TCR</scp>–p<scp>MHC</scp>–<scp>CD</scp>8 kinetics determines <scp>T</scp>‐cell responses in a self‐antigen‐specific <scp>TCR</scp> system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two-dimensional (2D) kinetic analysis directly measures molecular interactions at cell-cell junctions, thereby incorporating inherent cellular effects. By comparison, three-dimensional (3D) analysis probes the intrinsic physical chemistry of interacting molecules isolated from the cell. To understand how T-cell tumor reactivity relates to 2D and 3D binding parameters and to directly compare them, we performed kinetic analyses of a panel of human T-cell receptors (TCRs) interacting with a melanoma self-antigen peptide (gp100209 -217 ) bound to peptide-major histocompatibility complex in the absence and presence of co-receptor CD8. We found that while 3D parameters are inadequate to predict T-cell function, 2D parameters (that do not correlate with their 3D counterparts) show a far broader dynamic range and significantly improved correlation with T-cell function. Thus, our data support the general notion that 2D parameters of TCR-peptide-major histocompatibility complex-CD8 interactions determine T-cell responsiveness and suggest a potential 2D-based strategy to screen TCRs for tumor immunotherapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.014 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".