MD‐1 expression regulates direct and indirect allorecognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expression of the molecule MD-1 was previously described to regulate allogeneic and xenogeneic skin graft survival, as documented by the decrease in rejection seen following functional blockade of MD-1 expression in vivo, using antisense oligodeoxynucleotides (ODNs) or anti-MD-1 antibodies. It was unclear from these data whether blockade of expression of MD-1 on donor or recipient cells was crucial. We have investigated the effect on allorecognition of treating skin graft donors, and/or recipients, of either fully major histocompatibility complex (MHC)-mismatched allogeneic skin grafts (C3H with C57BL/6 grafts and vice versa) or grafts differing at only multiple minor alloantigens (C3H with B10.BR grafts; C57BL/6 with C3H.SW), with antisense ODNs to MD-1, or in some cases, following transplantation of class II-deficient cells into class I-deficient mice. Graft-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) were measured in spleen cells recovered at sacrifice of recipients and following donor-specific restimulation in vitro. In the latter case, we also measured cell proliferation and (by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) production of interleukin-2 (IL-2)/interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) or IL-4/IL-10 in vitro (nominal type-1 vs type-2 cytokines). CTL responses to minor-incompatible grafts were diminished, only if graft recipients were treated with ODNs. However, treatment of graft donor and/or recipient of MHC-incompatible grafts produced inhibition of CTL production. Optimal inhibition came from treating both. Specific suppression of CTL production coincided with inhibition of proliferation and preferential production of IL-4 and IL-10 at the expense of IL-2 and IFN-gamma. Our data are consistent with the hypothesis that MD-1 expression regulates both the direct and indirect pathways of allorecognition and that regulation of MD-1 expression may thus help regulate clinical graft rejection.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".