IgG and IgA with Potential Microbial-Binding Activity Are Expressed by Normal Human Skin Epidermal Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The innate immune system of the skin is thought to depend largely on a multi-layered mechanical barrier supplemented by epidermis-derived antimicrobial peptides. To date, there are no reports of antimicrobial antibody secretion by the epidermis. In this study, we report the expression of functional immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin A (IgA), previously thought to be only produced by B cells, in normal human epidermal cells and the human keratinocyte line HaCaT. While B cells express a fully diverse Ig, epidermal cell-expressed IgG or IgA showed one or two conservative VHDJH rearrangements in each individual. These unique VDJ rearrangements in epidermal cells were found neither in the B cell-derived Ig VDJ databases published by others nor in our positive controls. IgG and IgA from epidermal cells of the same individual had different VDJ rearrangement patterns. IgG was found primarily in prickle cells, and IgA was mainly detected in basal cells. Both epidermal cell-derived IgG and IgA showed potential antibody activity by binding pathogens like Staphylococcus aureus, the most common pathogenic skin bacteria, but the microbial-binding profile was different. Our data indicates that normal human epidermal cells spontaneously express IgG and IgA, and we speculate that these Igs participate in skin innate immunity.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".