MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035279824 · doi:10.1182/blood-2012-05-433037

Epidermis instructs skin homing receptor expression in human T cells

2012· article· en· W2035279824 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle L. McCully, Kristin Ladell, Svetlana Hakobyan, Robert E. Mansel, David A. Price, Bernhard Moser

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and B-cell Immunology
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsBiologyHoming (biology)Cell biologyHuman skinEpidermis (zoology)Lymphocyte homing receptorImmunologyCellAnatomyCell adhesion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The localization of memory T cells to human skin is essential for long-term immune surveillance and the maintenance of barrier integrity. Although the mechanisms controlling memory T-cell migration to peripheral tissues are poorly understood, the current paradigm includes the localized secretion of "imprinting" signals from tissue-resident dendritic cells in the draining lymph nodes. Here we show that CCR8 expression by newly activated naive T cells is regulated by skin-specific factor(s) derived primarily from epidermal keratinocytes, thereby providing a mechanism for the preferential expression of CCR8 by skin-resident memory T cells. Importantly, no such effects were observed after coculture with primary cells from skin-unrelated epithelia, including mesothelium and small intestine. The keratinocyte-derived CCR8-inducing factor(s) were soluble, and independent of vitamins A and D. Furthermore, the induction of CCR8 under these conditions correlated with an increase in cutaneous lymphocyte-associated antigen expression. Our findings challenge current tissue homing paradigms, especially those involving CCR10, and emphasize the importance of steady-state epidermis rather than tissue-resident dendritic cells in controlling the localization of memory T cells within human skin.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations79
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicT-cell and B-cell ImmunologyFrench-language works237,207