A Systems Biology Approach to the Analysis of Subset-Specific Responses to Lipopolysaccharide in Dendritic Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dendritic cells (DCs) are critical for regulating CD4 and CD8 T cell immunity, controlling Th1, Th2, and Th17 commitment, generating inducible Tregs, and mediating tolerance. It is believed that distinct DC subsets have evolved to control these different immune outcomes. However, how DC subsets mount different responses to inflammatory and/or tolerogenic signals in order to accomplish their divergent functions remains unclear. Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) provides an excellent model for investigating responses in closely related splenic DC subsets, as all subsets express the LPS receptor TLR4 and respond to LPS in vitro. However, previous studies of the LPS-induced DC transcriptome have been performed only on mixed DC populations. Moreover, comparisons of the in vivo response of two closely related DC subsets to LPS stimulation have not been reported in the literature to date. We compared the transcriptomes of murine splenic CD8 and CD11b DC subsets after in vivo LPS stimulation, using RNA-Seq and systems biology approaches. We identified subset-specific gene signatures, which included multiple functional immune mediators unique to each subset. To explain the observed subset-specific differences, we used a network analysis approach. While both DC subsets used a conserved set of transcription factors and major signalling pathways, the subsets showed differential regulation of sets of genes that 'fine-tune' the network Hubs expressed in common. We propose a model in which signalling through common pathway components is 'fine-tuned' by transcriptional control of subset-specific modulators, thus allowing for distinct functional outcomes in closely related DC subsets. We extend this analysis to comparable datasets from the literature and confirm that our model can account for cell subset-specific responses to LPS stimulation in multiple subpopulations in mouse and man.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".