Expression and function of 4‐1BB during CD4 versus CD8 T cell responses <i>in vivo</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4-1BBL(-/-) mice have a defect in recall CD8+ T cell responses to viruses, whereas CD4+ T cell responses to virus are unimpaired in these mice. In contrast, both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells respond to 4-1BB ligand (4-1BBL) in vitro. To clarify the role of 4-1BB/4-1BBL in CD4+ versus CD8+ T cell responses in vivo, we compared CD4 (OT-II) and CD8 (OT-I) TCR transgenic T cells responding to the same antigen in an in vivo adoptive transfer model in 4-1BBL(+/+) versus 4-1BBL(-/-) mice. During primary and secondary responses, expression of 4-1BB on in vivo-activated TCR transgenic T cells was earlier and more transient than previously observed in vitro, correlating with expression of the early activation antigen CD69 and preceding the transition to the CD44hi state. Although 4-1BB is expressed early in the primary response, there was no effect of 4-1BBL deficiency on initial CD8 T cell expansion and only a minor effect on initial CD4 T cell expansion. The major effect of 4-1BB/4-1BBL interaction is on the T cell recall response. This is due to effects of 4-1BBL on maintenance of T cell numbers at the end of the primary response with additional effects of 4-1BBL on secondary expansion of T cells.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".