Regulatory Dendritic Cells for Immunotherapy in Immunologic Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We recognize well the abilities of dendritic cells to activate effector T cell (Teff cell) responses to an array of antigens and think of these cells in this context as pre-eminent antigen-presenting cells, but dendritic cells are also critical to the induction of immunologic tolerance. Herein, we review our knowledge on the different kinds of tolerogenic or regulatory dendritic cells that are present or can be induced in experimental settings and humans, how they operate, and the diseases in which they are effective, from allergic to autoimmune diseases and transplant tolerance. The primary conclusions that arise from these cumulative studies clearly indicate that the agent(s) used to induce the tolerogenic phenotype and the status of the dendritic cell at the time of induction influence not only the phenotype of the dendritic cell, but also that of the regulatory T cell responses that they in turn mobilize. For example, while many, if not most, types of induced regulatory dendritic cells lead CD4(+) naïve or Teff cells to adopt a CD25(+)Foxp3(+) Treg phenotype, exposure of Langerhans cells or dermal dendritic cells to vitamin D leads in one case to the downstream induction of CD25(+)Foxp3(+) regulatory T cell responses, while in the other to Foxp3(-) type 1 regulatory T cells (Tr1) responses. Similarly, exposure of human immature versus semi-mature dendritic cells to IL-10 leads to distinct regulatory T cell outcomes. Thus, it should be possible to shape our dendritic cell immunotherapy approaches for selective induction of different types of T cell tolerance or to simultaneously induce multiple types of regulatory T cell responses. This may prove to be an important option as we target diseases in different anatomic compartments or with divergent pathologies in the clinic. Finally, we provide an overview of the use and potential use of these cells clinically, highlighting their potential as tools in an array of settings.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".