Human CD3γ, but not CD3δ, haploinsufficiency differentially impairs γδ versus αβ surface TCR expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The T cell antigen receptors (TCR) of αβ and γδ T lymphocytes are believed to assemble in a similar fashion in humans. Firstly, αβ or γδ TCR chains incorporate a CD3δε dimer, then a CD3γε dimer and finally a ζζ homodimer, resulting in TCR complexes with the same CD3 dimer stoichiometry. Partial reduction in the expression of the highly homologous CD3γ and CD3δ proteins would thus be expected to have a similar impact in the assembly and surface expression of both TCR isotypes. To test this hypothesis, we compared the surface TCR expression of primary αβ and γδ T cells from healthy donors carrying a single null or leaky mutation in CD3G (γ+/-) or CD3D (δ+/-, δ+/leaky) with that of normal controls. RESULTS: Although the partial reduction in the intracellular availability of CD3γ or CD3δ proteins was comparable as a consequence of the mutations, surface TCR expression measured with anti-CD3ε antibodies was significantly more decreased in γδ than in αβ T lymphocytes in CD3γ+/- individuals, whereas CD3δ+/- and CD3δ+/leaky donors showed a similar decrease of surface TCR in both T cell lineages. Therefore, surface γδ TCR expression was more dependent on available CD3γ than surface αβ TCR expression. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the existence of differential structural constraints in the two human TCR isotypes regarding the incorporation of CD3γε and CD3δε dimers, as revealed by their discordant surface expression behaviour when confronted with reduced amounts of CD3γ, but not of the homologous CD3δ chain. A modified version of the prevailing TCR assembly model is proposed to accommodate these new data.
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) | 0.003 | 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".