Human C1qRp Is Identical with CD93 and the mNI-11 Antigen But Does Not Bind C1q
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been suggested that the human C1qRp is a receptor for the complement component C1q; however, there is no direct evidence for an interaction between C1q and C1qRp. In this study, we demonstrate that C1q does not show enhanced binding to C1qRp-transfected cells compared with control cells. Furthermore, a soluble recombinant C1qRp-Fc chimera failed to interact with immobilized C1q. The proposed role of C1qRp in the phagocytic response in vivo is also unsupported in that we demonstrate that this molecule is not expressed by macrophages in a variety of human tissues and the predominant site of expression is on endothelial cells. Studies on the rodent homolog of C1qRp, known as AA4, have suggested that this molecule may function as an intercellular adhesion molecule. Here we show that C1qRp is the Ag recognized by several previously described mAbs, mNI-11 and two anti-CD93 Abs (clones X2 and VIMD2b). Interestingly, mNI-11 (Fab') has been shown to promote monocyte-monocyte and monocyte-endothelial cell adhesive interactions. We produced a recombinant C1qRp-Fc chimera containing the C-type lectin-like domain of C1qRp and found specific binding to vascular endothelial cells in sections of inflamed human tonsil, indicating the presence of a C1qRp ligand at this site. This interaction was Ca(2+) independent and was not blocked by our anti-C1qRp mAb BIIG-4, but was blocked by the proadhesive mAb mNI-11. Collectively, these data indicate that C1qRp is not a receptor for C1q, and they support the emerging role of C1qRp (here renamed CD93) in functions relevant to intercellular adhesion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".