ATG-induced expression of FOXP3 in human CD4+ T cells in vitro is associated with T-cell activation and not the induction of FOXP3+ T regulatory cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several recent reports have suggested that in vitro exposure of CD4(+) T cells to rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG), which is commonly used to prevent and treat graft-versus-host disease and allograft rejection, is an effective method to induce CD4(+)CD25(+)FOXP3(+) T regulatory cells (Tregs). We and others, however, have shown that FOXP3 is also expressed in activated T cells. We therefore investigated whether the induction of FOXP3 expression by rATG resulted in a stable population of suppressive Tregs. We found that exposure of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) or conventional T cells to rATG resulted in induction of transient rather than stable expression of CD25 and FOXP3. Furthermore, rATG-treated T effector cells acquired neither an immunosuppressive profile of cytokine production nor suppressive capacity, even at the time of maximal FOXP3 expression. These findings indicate that the notion that rATG can be used to induce Tregs in vitro for cellular therapy in vivo should be re-evaluated.
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 | 0.001 |
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.
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".