Direct Comparison of Dll1- and Dll4-Mediated Notch Activation Levels Shows Differential Lymphomyeloid Lineage Commitment Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the thymus, Notch signaling is essential for T lymphopoiesis, with Delta-like (Dll)4 uniquely involved in this process. However, using cocultures, either Dll4 or Dll1 were shown to support T lymphopoiesis. To address which Dll is more effective at inducing hematopoietic progenitor cells to give rise to T lineage cells in vitro, we generated OP9 cells expressing a series of incrementally discrete and equivalent levels of Dll1 or Dll4. In keeping with previous findings, OP9 cells expressing high levels of either Dll1 or Dll4 gave rise to T lineage cells with similar efficacy, and prevented the differentiation of B and myeloid-lineage cells. However, at limiting levels, Dll4 maintained its ability to inhibit B lineage choice and induce T lineage commitment and differentiation at lower levels than Dll1. This manifest property of Dll4 is evident despite lower levels of steady-state surface expression than Dll1 on OP9 cells. The heightened effectiveness of Dll4 over Dll1 also corresponded to the induction of Notch target genes, and inhibition of B and myeloid-specific transcription factors. Furthermore, we show that OP9 cells expressing levels of Dll4 equivalent to those present in thymic epithelial cells, as expected, gave rise to T lineage cells, but were also permissive for the differentiation of myeloid cells; whereas, still inhibiting B lymphopoiesis. Our findings show that Dll4 expressed at physiological levels on OP9 cells is functionally distinct from similarly expressed levels of Dll1, illustrating the unique properties of Dll4 in supporting the combined T lineage and specific myeloid-lineage outcomes that underpin its function within the thymus.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".