Evidence of a role for CD200 in regulation of immune rejection of leukaemic tumour cells in C57BL/6 mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased expression of the molecule CD200 in mice receiving renal allografts is associated with immunosuppression leading to increased graft survival, and altered cytokine production in lymphocytes harvested from the transplanted animals. Preferential production of IL-4, IL-10 and TGFbeta occurs on donor-specific restimulation in vitro, with decreased production of IL-2, IFNgamma and TNFalpha. These effects are enhanced by simultaneous infusion of CD200 immunoadhesin (CD200Fc) and donor CD200 receptor (CD200r) bearing macrophages to transplanted mice. C57BL/6 mice do not normally resist growth of EL4 or C1498 leukaemia tumour cells. Following transplantation of cyclophosphamide-treated C57BL/6 with T-depleted C3H bone marrow cells, or for the EL4 tumour, immunization of C57BL/6 mice with tumour cells transfected with a vector encoding the co-stimulatory molecule CD80 (EL4-CD80), mice resist growth of tumour challenge. Immunization of C57BL/6 mice with EL4 cells overexpressing CD86 (EL4-CD86) is ineffective. Protection from tumour growth in either model is suppressed by infusion of CD200Fc, an effect enhanced by co-infusion of CD200r+ macrophages. CD200Fc acts on both CD4+ and CD8+ cells to produce this suppression. These data are consistent with the hypothesis that immunosuppression following CD200-CD200r interaction can regulate a functionally important tumour growth inhibition response in mice.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".