MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105446185 · doi:10.1084/jem.194.6.855

Monocyte Selectivity and Tissue Localization Suggests a Role for Breast and Kidney–Expressed Chemokine (Brak) in Macrophage Development

2001· article· en· W2105446185 on OpenAlexaff
Isabel Kurth, Katharina Willimann, Patrick Schaerli, Thomas Hunziker, Ian Clark‐Lewis, Bernhard Moser

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Experimental Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemokineMonocyteMacrophageCell biologyBiologyCXCL14ImmunologyCCL7ChemotaxisCXCL2CCL2CXCL10Chemokine receptorInflammationReceptorIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although numerous chemokines act on monocytes, none of them is specific for these cells. Here, we show that breast and kidney-expressed chemokine (BRAK) is a highly selective monocyte chemoattractant. Migration efficacy and Bordetella pertussis toxin-sensitive Ca(2+) mobilization responses to BRAK were strongly enhanced after treatment of monocytes with the cyclic AMP-elevating agents prostaglandin E(2) and forskolin. BRAK is the first monocyte-selective chemokine, as other types of blood leukocytes or monocyte-derived dendritic cells and macrophages did not respond. Expression in normal skin keratinocytes and dermal fibroblasts as well as lamina propria cells in normal intestinal tissues suggests a homeostatic rather than an inflammatory function for this chemokine. In addition, macrophages were frequently found to colocalize with BRAK-producing fibroblasts. We propose that BRAK is involved in the generation of tissue macrophages by recruiting extravasated precursors to fibroblasts, which are known to secrete essential cytokines for macrophage development.

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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations219
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Experimental MedicineSame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207