MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146460358 · doi:10.1093/intimm/dxs055

Direct demonstration of CD4 T cell cooperation in the primary <i>in vivo</i> generation of CD4 effector T cells

2012· article· en· W2146460358 on OpenAlexaff
David R. Kroeger, Christopher D. Rudulier, Nathan C. Peters, Peter A. Bretscher

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Immunology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and B-cell Immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCD40T cellCell biologyAntigen-presenting cellEffectorStreptamerImmune systemInterleukin 21MHC class IIChemistryBiologyCytotoxic T cellImmunologyIn vitroBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many observations bear upon the cellular and molecular requirements for CD4 T cell activation. The interaction of CD4 T cells with dendritic cells (DC), central to the induction of most immune responses, is the most studied. However, leukocytes other than DC can dramatically affect the induction and differentiation of CD4 T cells into effector cells. We recently provided indirect evidence that in vivo CD4 T cooperation facilitates the activation of CD4 T cells. Here, we demonstrate that the activation of CD4 T cells, specific for the hen egg lysozyme (HEL)(105) (-120) peptide, is optimally achieved when BALB/c mice are immunized with additional MHC class II-binding HEL peptides in incomplete Freund's adjuvant. This cooperation cannot be mimicked by the coadministration of LPS or of an agonistic antibody to CD40, at the time of immunization. In contrast, OX40-OX40L interactions are necessary for CD4 T cell cooperation in that an OX40 agonistic antibody can replace, and an OX40L-blocking antibody can abrogate, CD4 T cell cooperation in situations where such cooperation would otherwise enhance the activation of CD4 T cells.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational ImmunologySame topicT-cell and B-cell ImmunologyFrench-language works237,207