MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141427930 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.165.3.1352

CTLA-4 (CD152) Can Inhibit T Cell Activation by Two Different Mechanisms Depending on Its Level of Cell Surface Expression

2000· article· en· W2141427930 on OpenAlexaff
Beatriz M. Carreno, Frann Bennett, Thu Chau, Vincent Ling, Deborah Luxenberg, Jason Jussif, Miren L. Baroja, Joaquı́n Madrenas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and B-cell Immunology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCD28Cell biologyCTLA-4T cellCytoplasmCellChemistrySignal transductionBiologyImmunologyBiochemistryImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CTLA-4 (CD152) engagement results in down-regulation of T cell activation. Two mechanisms have been postulated to explain CTLA-4 inhibition of T cell activation: negative signaling and competitive antagonism of CD28:B7-mediated costimulation. We assessed the contributions of these two mechanisms using a panel of T cell lines expressing human CTLA-4 with mutations in the cytoplasmic region. Under conditions of B7-independent costimulation, inhibition of IL-2 production following CTLA-4 engagement required the CTLA-4 cytoplasmic region. In contrast, under B7-dependent costimulation, inhibition of IL-2 production by CTLA-4 engagement was directly proportional to CTLA-4 cell surface levels and did not require its cytoplasmic region. Thus, CTLA-4 down-regulates T cell activation by two different mechanisms-delivery of a negative signal or B7 sequestration-that are operational depending on the levels of CTLA-4 surface expression. These two mechanisms may have distinct functional outcomes: rapid inhibition of T cell activation or induction of T cell anergy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations263
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicT-cell and B-cell ImmunologyFrench-language works237,207