T cell adhesion mechanisms revealed by receptor lateral mobility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cell surface receptors mediate the exchange of information between cells and their environment. In the case of adhesion receptors, the spatial distribution and molecular associations of the receptors are critical to their function. Therefore, understanding the mechanisms regulating the distribution and binding associations of these molecules is necessary to understand their functional regulation. Experiments characterizing the lateral mobility of adhesion receptors have revealed a set of common mechanisms that control receptor function and thus cellular behavior. The T cell provides one of the most dynamic examples of cellular adhesion. An individual T cell makes innumerable intercellular contacts with antigen presenting cells, the vascular endothelium, and many other cell types. We review here the mechanisms that regulate T cell adhesion receptor lateral mobility as a window into the molecular regulation of these systems, and we present a general framework for understanding the principles and mechanisms that are likely to be common among these and other cellular adhesion systems. We suggest that receptor lateral mobility is regulated via four major mechanisms—reorganization, recruitment, dispersion, and anchoring—and we review specific examples of T cell adhesion receptor systems that utilize one or more of these mechanisms. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Biopolymers 89: 409–419, 2008. This article was originally published online as an accepted preprint. The “Published Online” date corresponds to the preprint version. You can request a copy of the preprint by emailing the Biopolymers editorial office at biopolymers@wiley.com
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
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".