Phenotypic model for early T-cell activation displaying sensitivity, specificity, and antagonism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early T-cell activation is selected by evolution to discriminate a few foreign peptides rapidly from a vast excess of self-peptides, and it is unclear in quantitative terms how this is possible. We show that a generic proofreading cascade supplemented by a single negative feedback mediated by the Src homology 2 domain phosphatase-1 (SHP-1) accounts quantitatively for early T-cell activation, including the effects of antagonists. Modulation of the negative feedback with SHP-1 concentration explains counterintuitive experimental observations, such as the nonmonotonic behavior of receptor activity on agonist concentration, the digital vs. continuous behavior on certain parameters, and the loss of response for high SHP-1 concentration. New experiments validate predictions on the nontrivial joint dependence on binding time and concentration for the relative effect of two antagonists: We explain why strong antagonists behave as partial agonists at low concentration and predict that the relative effect of antagonists can invert as their concentrations are varied. By focusing on the phenotype, our model quantitatively fits a body of experimental data with minimal variables and parameters.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".