MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Isolation, Expansion, and Characterization of Human Natural and Adaptive Regulatory T Cells

2007· review· en· W23154186 on OpenAlexaff
Silvia Gregori, Rosa Bacchetta, Laura Passerini, Megan K. Levings, Maria Grazia Roncarolo

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and B-cell Immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIL-2 receptorCell biologyFOXP3BiologyRegulatory T cellPopulationAcquired immune systemT cellImmunologyAntigenImmune systemMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regulatory T cells play a central role in controlling homeostasis, and in inducing and maintaining tolerance to both foreign and self-antigens. Several types of T cells with regulatory activity have been described both in mice and humans, and those within the CD4+ subset have been extensively studied. Among them, the best characterized are the naturally occurring CD4+CD25+ regulatory T (Treg) cells, and the adaptive type 1 regulatory T (Tr1) cells. Natural Treg cells can arise directly from the thymus, are characterized by the constitutive expression of the transcription factor Foxp3, and suppress T cell responses in a cell-cell contact mediated mechanism. On the contrary, adaptive Tr1 cells arise in the periphery upon encountering antigen in a tolerogenic environment, produce high levels of interleukin (IL)-10 and mediate suppression via IL-10. During the last decade, much effort has been placed on developing protocols to generate regulatory T-cell lines and clones, to further define the similarities and differences between various regulatory T-cell subsets. In this chapter, we will outline protocols to expand naturally occurring Treg cells, to differentiate homogeneous population of Tr1 cells in vitro, and to generate natural Treg and Tr1 cell clones and cell lines.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.326 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations41
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicT-cell and B-cell ImmunologyFrench-language works237,207