Standardizing Scavenger Receptor Nomenclature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scavenger receptors constitute a large family of proteins that are structurally diverse and participate in a wide range of biological functions. These receptors are expressed predominantly by myeloid cells and recognize a variety of ligands, including endogenous and modified host-derived molecules and microbial pathogens. There are currently eight classes of scavenger receptors, many of which have multiple names, leading to inconsistencies and confusion in the literature. To address this problem, a workshop was organized by the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health to help develop a clear definition of scavenger receptors and a standardized nomenclature based on that definition. Fifteen experts in the scavenger receptor field attended the workshop and, after extensive discussion, reached a consensus regarding the definition of scavenger receptors and a proposed scavenger receptor nomenclature. Scavenger receptors were defined as cell surface receptors that typically bind multiple ligands and promote the removal of non-self or altered-self targets. They often function by mechanisms that include endocytosis, phagocytosis, adhesion, and signaling that ultimately lead to the elimination of degraded or harmful substances. Based on this definition, nomenclature and classification of these receptors into 10 classes were proposed. The discussion and nomenclature recommendations described in this report only refer to mammalian scavenger receptors. The purpose of this article is to describe the proposed mammalian nomenclature and classification developed at the workshop and to solicit additional feedback from the broader research community.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".