MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2310387205 · doi:10.1093/jnen/59.2.129

B7 Expression and Antigen Presentation by Human Brain Endothelial Cells: Requirement for Proinflammatory Cytokines

2000· article· en· W2310387205 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Prat, Katarzyna Biernacki, Burkhard Becher, Jack P. Antel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Response and Inflammation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProinflammatory cytokineImmune systemBiologyImmunologyAntigen presentationCytokineAntigenT cellMicrogliaAntigen-presenting cellCell biologyInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interaction between systemic immune cells with cells of the blood-brain barrier is a central step in development of CNS-directed immune responses. Endothelial cells are the first cells of the blood-brain barrier encountered by migrating lymphocytes. To investigate the antigen-presenting capacity of human adult brain endothelial cells (HBECs), we used HBECs derived from surgically resected temporal lobe tissue, cocultured with allogeneic peripheral blood derived CD4+ T lymphocytes. HBECs in response to IFN-gamma, but not under basal culture conditions, expressed HLA-DR, B7.1 and B7.2 antigens. Despite such up-regulation, these IFN-gamma-treated HBECs, in contrast to human microglia and PB monocytes, did not sustain allogeneic CD4+ cell proliferation, supported only low levels of IL-2 and IFN-gamma production, and did not stimulate IL-2 receptor expression. CD4+ T cell proliferation and increased IL-2 receptor expression could be obtained by addition of IL-2. Our data suggests that, although HBECs cannot alone support T cell proliferation and cytokine production, HBECs acting in concert with cytokines derived from a proinflammatory environment could support such a response.

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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

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 head0.270
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations63
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuropathology & Experimental NeurologySame topicImmune Response and InflammationFrench-language works237,207