MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003874706 · doi:10.1002/eji.200939586

Adenosine mediated desensitization of cAMP signaling enhances T‐cell responses

2009· article· en· W2003874706 on OpenAlexafffund
Ailian Yang, Ashley D. Mucsi, Melanie D. Desrosiers, Jiang‐Fan Chen, Jürgen Schnermann, Michael R. Blackburn, Yan Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Immunology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdenosine and Purinergic Signaling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiologyDesensitization (medicine)AdenosineCell biologySignal transductionPurinergic signallingAdenosine receptorEndocrinologyReceptorBiochemistryAgonist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adenosine has long been regarded as a crucial anti-inflammatory agent that protects the host from excessive damage. It has been reported to play an important role in suppressing immune activation, particularly that of T cells. However, it is a general observation that induction of T-cell activation is an efficient event despite the high adenosine levels that are often present in the affected host due to injury or stress. We report here that prior to antigenic stimulation via TCR/CD3, exposure of T cells to adenosine desensitizes adenosine receptors, so as to create a window of time where the T cells are insensitive to this ubiquitous suppressor. T cells from mice that were pre-exposed to this manipulation showed stronger responses to antigenic stimulation; therefore, the P1 adenosine receptor desensitization demonstrated an adjuvant-like effect. Our results suggest that adenosine receptor desensitization may be a mechanism for T cells to escape the general suppression during early points of T-cell activation and may emerge as a potential alternative for vaccine adjuvants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of ImmunologySame topicAdenosine and Purinergic SignalingFrench-language works237,207