The outcome of cross‐priming during virus infection is not directly linked to the ability of the antigen to be cross‐presented
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The initiation of CD8(+) T cell (CTL) immune responses can occur via cross-priming. Recent data suggested a relationship between cross-presentation and immunodominance of epitope-specific T cells. To test this association, we evaluated the efficacy of cross-presentation for several virus epitopes in vitro and examined if this can be extrapolated in vivo. Employing lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV), we demonstrate that the cross-presentation and cross-priming of LCMV antigens were dominated by NP396, but not NP205 when analyzing the LCMV-NP. Although with LCMV-GP, cross-presentation was dominated by GP276, and cross-priming was dominated by GP33. Importantly, although NP396 was significantly more efficient than GP33 in cross-presentation, cross-priming of their specific CTL was comparable. In a subsequent virus challenge after cross-priming, GP33-specific CTL dominated the response. Accordingly, based on our data, the ability of viral epitopes to be cross-presented in vitro does not entirely reflect what would occur in cross-priming. Thus, weak cross-presenting antigens may still cross-prime an efficient CTL response depending on other in vivo elements such as the naïve T-cell precursor frequencies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".