SHIP-Deficient Dendritic Cells, Unlike Wild Type Dendritic Cells, Suppress T Cell Proliferation via a Nitric Oxide-Independent Mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dendritic cells (DCs) not only play a crucial role in activating immune cells but also suppressing them. We recently investigated SHIP's role in murine DCs in terms of immune cell activation and found that TLR agonist-stimulated SHIP-/- GM-CSF-derived DCs (GM-DCs) were far less capable than wild type (WT, SHIP+/+) GM-DCs at activating T cell proliferation. This was most likely because SHIP-/- GM-DCs could not up-regulate MHCII and/or co-stimulatory receptors following TLR stimulation. However, the role of SHIP in DC-induced T cell suppression was not investigated. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In this study we examined SHIP's role in DC-induced T cell suppression by co-culturing WT and SHIP-/- murine DCs, derived under different conditions or isolated from spleens, with αCD3+ αCD28 activated WT T cells and determined the relative suppressive abilities of the different DC subsets. We found that, in contrast to SHIP+/+ and -/- splenic or Flt3L-derived DCs, which do not suppress T cell proliferation in vitro, both SHIP+/+ and -/- GM-DCs were capable of potently suppressing T cell proliferation. However, WT GM-DC suppression appeared to be mediated, at least in part, by nitric oxide (NO) production while SHIP-/- GM-DCs expressed high levels of arginase 1 and did not produce NO. Following exhaustive studies to ascertain the mechanism of SHIP-/- DC-mediated suppression, we could conclude that cell-cell contact was required and the mechanism may be related to their relative immaturity, compared to SHIP+/+ GM-DCs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that although both SHIP+/+ and -/- GM-DCs suppress T cell proliferation, the mechanism(s) employed are different. WT GM-DCs suppress, at least in part, via IFNγ-induced NO production while SHIP-/- GM-DCs do not produce NO and suppression can only be alleviated when contact is prevented.
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) | 0.001 | 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".