MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138446980 · doi:10.1128/cdli.7.2.182-191.2000

Down Regulation of CD4 Expression following Isolation and Culture of Human Monocytes

2000· article· en· W2138446980 on OpenAlexaff
Gina M. Graziani-Bowering, L G Filion

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonocytePeripheral blood mononuclear cellImmunologyFlow cytometryMonoclonal antibodyPhycoerythrinLipopolysaccharideBiologyMacrophageCytokineAntibodyIn vitroBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The down regulation of CD4 by cultured monocytes has been observed by our group and by other investigators. Flow cytometric experiments were done to examine which factors might influence this phenomenon. The addition of lipopolysaccharide, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, macrophage colony-stimulating factor, or interleukin-10 to monocyte cultures failed to inhibit the decrease in monocyte CD4 expression routinely observed following overnight culture. The down regulation was an adherence-independent phenomenon and was not influenced by the type of anticoagulant into which the peripheral blood was collected or by the presence or absence of lymphocytes within the cultures. The avoidance of the use of Ficoll-Paque to isolate peripheral blood mononuclear cells did not prevent monocyte CD4 down regulation. Finally, by tagging monocyte CD4 with an anti-CD4 phycoerythrin-conjugated monoclonal antibody prior to culture, we were able to determine that the down regulation observed was the result of the internalization of the molecule. At this time, we conclude that the observed down regulation of monocyte CD4 is probably due to the differentiation of blood monocytes into tissue culture-derived macrophages rather than to some artifact of the isolation procedure.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Diagnostic Laboratory ImmunologySame topicHIV Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207