Adult Thymic Epithelium Contains Nonsenescent Label-Retaining Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Progress in our understanding of thymic epithelial cell (TEC) renewal and homeostasis is hindered by the lack of markers for TEC progenitors. Stem and progenitor cell populations display remarkable diversity in their proliferative behavior. In some but not all tissues, stemness is associated with quiescence. The primary goal of our study was to discover whether quiescent cells were present in neonatal and adult TECs. To this end, we used a transgenic label-retaining cell (LRC) assay in which a histone H2B-GFP fusion protein is expressed under the control of the reverse tetracycline-controlled transactivator and the tetracycline operator minimal promoter. In adult mice, we found that both cortical and medullary TECs (cTECs and mTECs) proliferated more actively in females than males. Moreover, we observed three main differences between neonatal and adult TECs: 1) neonatal TECs proliferated more actively than adult TECs; 2) whereas cTECs and mTECs had similar turnover rates in young mice, the turnover of mTECs was more rapid than that of cTECs in adults; and 3) although no LRCs could be detected in young mice, LRCs were detectable after a 16-wk chase in adults. In female mice, LRCs were found almost exclusively among cTECs and expressed relatively low levels of p16INK4a, p19ARF, and Serpine1, and high levels of Bmi1, Foxn1, Trp63, and Wnt4. We conclude that LRCs in adult TECs are not senescent postmitotic cells and may represent the elusive progenitors responsible for TEC maintenance in the adult 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".