Heat Shock Protein 90 Expression in Epstein-Barr Virus-Infected B Cells Promotes γδ T-Cell Proliferation In Vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to elucidate the in vitro response of gammadelta T cells to Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-infected B cells and to determine whether EBV-induced heat shock proteins (HSPs) might serve as gammadelta T-cell stimulants. Cytofluorometric analysis revealed HSP90 cell surface expression in 12% of the EBV-immortalized B-cell population in all four of the B-cell lines tested. HSP27, HSP60, and HSP70 were not detected on the cell surface by cytofluorometry in these same B-cell lines. HSP90 and HSP60, but not HSP70 or HSP27, were detected on the cell surface after 125I cell surface labeling and immunoprecipitation with anti-human HSP monoclonal antibodies. In vitro kinetic studies indicated that gammadelta T cells increased at least twofold by day 11 postinfection in cultures of EBV-seronegative peripheral blood lymphocytes infected with EBV, whereas percentages of alphabeta T cells in these same cultures either decreased slightly or remained relatively unchanged in response to EBV infection. Addition of anti-human HSP90 monoclonal antibody to the EBV-infected lymphocyte cultures inhibited gammadelta T-cell expansion by 92%. The inhibition of gammadelta T-cell expansion by anti-HSP90 antibody was reversed upon treatment with exogenous HSP90. Taken together, these results indicate that HSP90 played an important role in the stimulation of gammadelta T cells during EBV infection of B cells in vitro and may serve as an important immunomodulator of gammadelta T cells during acute EBV infection.
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) | 0.002 | 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".