CD101 Expression and Function in Normal and Rheumatoid Arthritis-affected Human T Cells and Monocytes/Macrophages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It was recently reported that CD101 surface expression discriminates potency among CD4+CD25+ FoxP3+ regulatory T cells in the mouse. We investigated whether CD101 may also have a role in the suppressor function of regulatory T cells in humans given that the latter population may affect the autoimmune response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Sorted T cells and monocyte/macrophage cell populations were analyzed by flow cyto metry using conjugated antibodies specific for cell-surface markers. T cell proliferation assays were conducted by [(3)H]thymidine incorporation and CD8(high) cytotoxicity measurements by Cyto-Scan-LDH cytotoxicity assays. ELISA were used to measure cytokines in cell culture supernatants and Western blotting was performed for profiling mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase activation using specific antiphospholipid antibodies. RESULTS: CD101 expression coincided with PMA-induced monocyte/leukocyte lineage differentiation. CD8(high)CD101- T cells exhibited greater cytotoxic activity than CD8(high)CD101+ T cells, while no difference was observed between CD4CD25(high)CD101+ and CD4CD25(high)CD101- Treg inhibitory activity through responder T cells. LPS-induced proinflammatory cytokine production and p38 MAP kinase activation were made possible by ligation of CD101 with an anti-CD101 antibody F(ab')(2) fragment. CONCLUSION: These results suggested a modulatory/coregulatory function of CD101 in the human immune system, in contrast to murine models, in which CD101 surface expression discriminates potency among FoxP3+ regulatory T cells. Cytotoxic CD8(high)CD101+ T cells were markedly less cytotoxic than CD8(high) T cells negative for the CD101 antigen and were conspicuously downregulated in patients with RA, suggesting a possible role for CD101 expression and function in the control of certain manifestations of RA pathology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".