4-1BB and OX40 Act Independently to Facilitate Robust CD8 and CD4 Recall Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mice deficient in OX40 or 4-1BB costimulatory pathways show defects in T cell recall responses, with predominant effects on CD4 vs CD8 T cells, respectively. However, OX40L can also stimulate CD8 T cells and 4-1BBL can influence CD4 T cells, raising the possibility of redundancy between the two TNFR family costimulators. To test this possibility, we generated mice deficient in both 4-1BBL and OX40L. In an adoptive transfer model, CD4 T cells expressed 4-1BB and OX40 sequentially in response to immunization, with little or no overlap in the timing of their expression. Under the same conditions, CD8 T cells expressed 4-1BB, but no detectable OX40. Thus, in vivo expression of 4-1BB and OX40 can be temporally and spatially segregated. In the absence of OX40L, there were decreased CD4 T cells late in the primary response and no detectable secondary expansion of adoptively transferred CD4 T cells under conditions in which primary expansion was unaffected. The 4-1BBL had a minor effect on the primary response of CD4 T cells in this model, but showed larger effects on the secondary response, although 4-1BBL(-/-) mice show less impairment in CD4 secondary responses than OX40L(-/-) mice. The 4-1BBL(-/-) and double knockout mice were similarly impaired in the CD8 T cell response, whereas OX40L(-/-) and double knockout mice were similarly impaired in the CD4 T cell response to both protein Ag and influenza virus. Thus, 4-1BB and OX40 act independently and nonredundantly to facilitate robust CD4 and CD8 recall 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".