Greater frequency of CD5-negative CD8+ T cells against human immunodeficiency virus type 1 than other viruses is consistent with adaptation to antigenic variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The CD5 protein antagonizes phosphorylation events downstream of T cell receptor (TCR) engagement to decrease T cell responsiveness. CD5-negative T cell clones respond preferentially over their CD5(+) counterparts against cells with low human histocompatibility-linked leukocyte antigen (HLA) levels. In human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, CD5(-)CD8(+) T cells increase in prevalence with disease progression. METHODS: To investigate potential causes of this expansion of CD5(-)CD8(+) T cells in HIV-1 infection, we compared CD5 expression on CD8(+) T cells reactive against HIV-1 peptides, common viral peptides and a self peptide that together span a broad range of TCR avidities in the context of the common HLA-A2 class I restriction molecule. Following stimulation, CD5 expression on peptide-specific CD8(+) T cells was assessed by flow cytometry. RESULTS: In healthy controls, there was no significant difference in the CD5(+) percentage of CD8(+) T cells specific for common viral peptides, but a lower percentage of those responding against a common self peptide expressed CD5. The same relationship occurred in HIV-infected individuals, however, a lower percentage of HIV peptide-specific CD8(+) T cells than other viral peptide-specific CD8(+) T cells expressed CD5. In terms of overall CD5 expression level at the peptide-specific responder population level, HIV-specific CD8(+) T cells resembled those responsive against the self peptide, despite much higher avidity TCR/HLA/peptide interactions. CONCLUSIONS: This deficit in CD5 expression selective for HIV-specific CD8(+) T cells is consistent with in vivo adaptation to low avidity HIV peptide variants and has potential consequences for CD8(+) T cell expansion, cross-reactivity and autoreactivity.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".