Replicating dendritic cells transmit internalized antigen to progeny for presentation (36.19)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During steady state conditions spleen dendritic cells (DC) turnover every 2–3 days. Recent evidence indicates that local proliferation of spleen DC contributes substantially to their homeostasis. We and others have shown that the majority of these dividing DC arise from a distinct population of replication-competent immediate conventional DC precursors (cDCp). cDCp generate exclusive conventional DC that continue to replicate for several generations. The objective of this study was to determine whether DC can replicate after capturing antigen, and whether replication provides a mechanism for disseminating antigen to their progeny. Real-time confocal microscopy revealed that replicating DC internalize and directly transfer model antigens to successive generations of progeny. Soluble protein antigen (ovalbumin) inherited by DC progeny in vitro or in vivo was presented effectively to OT-1 T cells. Other mechanisms of inter-DC antigen transfer (e.g. exosomes, cell membrane exchange) did not contribute to antigen acquisition by DC progeny. Our results suggest that replication of antigen-bearing DC is a fundamental behavior and may provide a novel mechanism for increasing the frequency of antigen-bearing DC, and duration of antigen presentation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".