An Interaction between CD200 and Monoclonal Antibody Agonists to CD200R2 in Development of Dendritic Cells That Preferentially Induce Populations of CD4+CD25+ T Regulatory Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In previous studies we reported that while interaction between the relatively ubiquitously expressed molecule CD200 and one of its receptors, CD200R1, resulted in direct suppression of alloreactivity, engagement of alternate receptors led instead to altered differentiation of dendritic cells (DCs) from marrow precursors, which could in turn foster development of Foxp3(+) regulatory T cells. We have explored this effect of engagement of alternate receptors by using a monoclonal agonist Ab to CD200R2 and investigating expression of TLRs on DCs induced in vivo and in vitro after CD200 stimulation in mice in which the gene encoding CD200R1 was deleted. CD200 stimulation was achieved by using either a soluble form of CD200 (CD200Fc) or overexpression of CD200 as a doxycycline-inducible transgene. Although broadly similar effects were seen, consistent with the hypothesis that triggering of CD200R2 does produce DCs with a characteristic TLR repertoire, there are subtle differences in suppression of alloreactivity achieved by CD200 delivered in these two manners, which is consistent with a complexity of CD200:CD200R engagement not previously appreciated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".