MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144004068 · doi:10.1182/blood.v98.10.2887

Direct evidence that leukemic cells present HLA-associated immunogenic peptides derived from the BCR-ABL b3a2 fusion protein

2001· article· en· W2144004068 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Richard E. Clark, I. Anthony Dodi, Seran C. Hill, Jennie R. Lill, Geraldine Aubert, Andrew R. Macintyre, José M. Rojas, Audrey Bourdon, Philip Bonner, Lihui Wang, Stephen E. Christmas, Paul Travers, Colin S. Creaser, Robert C. Rees, J. Alejandro Madrigal

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJohn and Lucille Van Geest FoundationNorth West Cancer ResearchTrent UniversityNottingham Trent University
KeywordsMyeloid leukemiaK562 cellsBiologyHuman leukocyte antigenCytotoxic T cellFusion proteinLeukemiaCancer researchImmunologyAntigenIn vitroGeneticsRecombinant DNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The BCR-ABL oncogene is central in the pathogenesis of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Here, tandem nanospray mass spectrometry was used to demonstrate cell surface HLA-associated expression of the BCR-ABL peptide KQSSKALQR on class I-negative CML cells transfected with HLA-A*0301, and on primary CML cells from HLA-A3-positive patients. These patients mounted a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte response to KQSSKALQR that also killed autologous CML cells, and tetramer staining demonstrated the presence of circulating KQSSKALQR-specific T cells. The findings are the first demonstration that CML cells express HLA-associated leukemia-specific immunogenic peptides and provide a sound basis for immunization studies against BCR-ABL.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations250
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207