MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062153264 · doi:10.1002/eji.200535184

Vaccine route, dose and type of delivery vector determine patterns of primary CD8<sup>+</sup> T cell responses

2005· article· en· W2062153264 on OpenAlexaff
Marie J. Estcourt, Sven Létourneau, Andrew J. McMichael, Tomáš Hanke

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Immunology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyVector (molecular biology)Primary (astronomy)CD8Type (biology)VirologyImmunologyGeneticsAntigenEcologyPhysicsGeneRecombinant DNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dynamics of primary CD8+ T cell responses following administration of modified virus Ankara (MVA)- and DNA-vectored vaccines was investigated in a mouse model. To overcome the low frequency of naive antigen-specific precursors and follow the early expansion events, naive CFSE-labelled T cell receptor-transgenic F5 lymphocytes were transferred into syngeneic non-transgenic recipients prior to vaccination. Using the i.d., i.v. and i.m. routes and increasing recombinant MVA (rMVA) vaccine doses, the primary response was analysed on a divisional basis at local and distant lymphoid organs at various times after vaccination. The results indicated that F5 cell divisions were initiated in the local draining lymph nodes and cells only after five to six divisions appeared at more distant sites. The rMVA dose affected frequencies of cells entering division and at the peak response. When priming induced by rMVA and plasmid DNA was compared, dramatic differences in the cycling patterns were observed with plasmid DNA inducing a response slower and more sustained over the first 2 wk than rMVA. Both rMVA and DNA induced comparable IFN-gamma production, which increased with cell divisions. Taken together, the vaccine type, dose and route have a strong influence on the spatial and temporal patterns of initial T cell responses.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.208 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations58
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of ImmunologySame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207