MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146662482 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.173.5.2960

Lipid Rafts Mediate Association of LFA-1 and CD3 and Formation of the Immunological Synapse of CTL

2004· article· en· W2146662482 on OpenAlexafffund
Muhammad R. Marwali, Matthew A. MacLeod, David N. Muzia, Fumio Takei

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaTerry Fox Research InstituteBC Cancer Agency
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsImmunological synapseLipid raftCTL*Cell biologyT-cell receptorSynapseCD3T cellBiologyCell signalingSignal transductionImmune systemImmunologyNeuroscienceCD8

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lipid rafts accumulate in the immunological synapse formed by an organized assembly of the TCR/CD3, LFA-1, and signaling molecules. However, the precise role of lipid rafts in the formation of the immunological synapse is unclear. In this study, we show that LFA-1 on CTL is constitutively active and mediates Ag-independent binding of CTL to target cells expressing its ligands. LFA-1 and CD3 on CTL, but not resting T cells, colocalize in lipid rafts. Binding of LFA-1 on CTL to targets initiates the formation of the immunological synapse, which is formed by LFA-1, CD3, and ganglioside GM1 distributed in the periphery of the cell contact site and cholesterol is more widely distributed. The formation of this synapse is Ag independent, but the recognition of Ag by the TCR induces accumulation of tyrosine phosphorylated proteins in the synapse as well as redistribution of the microtubule organization center toward the cell contact site. Our results suggest that LFA-1 recruits lipid rafts and the TCR/CD3 to the synapse, and facilitates efficient and rapid activation of CTL.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations35
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207