MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153459584 · doi:10.1093/intimm/dxp098

Expression of fully assembled TCR-CD3 complex on double positive thymocytes: synergistic role for the PRS and ER retention motifs in the intra-cytoplasmic tail of CD3 

2009· article· en· W2153459584 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean-Francois Brodeur, S. Li, O. Damlaj, Vijay Dave

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Immunology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Cell Function and Interaction
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMontreal Clinical Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsT-cell receptorThymocyteBiologyCD3CD8Cell biologyDouble negativeCytoplasmEndoplasmic reticulumTransgeneMolecular biologyER retentionT cellGeneGeneticsAntigenImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TCR expression on double-positive (DP) thymocytes is a prerequisite for thymic selection that results in the generation of mature CD4(+) and CD8(+) single-positive T cells. TCR is expressed at very low level on preselection DP thymocytes and is dramatically up-regulated on positively selected thymocytes. However, mechanism governing TCR expression on developing thymocytes is not understood. In the present report, we demonstrate that the intra-cytoplasmic (IC) domain of CD3epsilon plays a critical role in regulating TCR expression on DP thymocytes. We provide genetic and biochemical evidence to show that the CD3epsilon IC domain mutations result in elevated expression of fully assembled TCR on DP thymocytes. We also demonstrate that TCR up-regulation on DP thymocytes in these transgenic mice occurs in a ligand-independent manner. Further, we show that the proline-rich sequence and endoplasmic reticulum (ER) retention motifs in the IC domain of CD3epsilon play synergistic role in regulating TCR surface expression on DP thymocytes.

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)0.000
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational ImmunologySame topicImmune Cell Function and InteractionFrench-language works237,207