Dendritic cell expression of the Notch ligand <i>jagged2</i> is not essential for Th2 response induction <i>in vivo</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have addressed the hypothesis that Notch ligands play a decisive role in determining the ability of antigen-presenting cells to influence T cell polarization. Dendritic cells displayed distinct expression profiles of Delta and Jagged ligands for Notch when exposed to biologically relevant pathogen preparations associated with Th1 or Th2 responses. Expression of delta4 was increased, and jagged2 decreased, after dendritic cell exposure to the Th1-promoting bacterium Propionibacterium acnes. In contrast, soluble egg antigen (SEA) from the parasitic helminth Schistosoma mansoni, a potent Th2 inducer, failed to significantly alter dendritic cell expression of any of the Notch ligands measured. Irrespective of this, jagged2-deficient dendritic cells were severely impaired in their ability to instruct Th2 polarization of naive T cells in vitro. However, the ability of SEA-pulsed jagged2-deficient dendritic cells to induce a Th2 response in vivo was unimpaired relative to jagged2-sufficient dendritic cells. Further, jagged2-deficient dendritic cells activated by P. acnes exhibited no evidence of enhanced (or impaired) Th1 induction in vivo. These data suggest that, although involved in Th2 direction in vitro, jagged2 is not fundamentally required for Th2 induction by SEA-activated dendritic cells in vivo.
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 | 0.001 |
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".