A Novel Computational Model Predicts Key Regulators of Chemokine Gradient Formation in Lymph Nodes and Site-Specific Roles for CCL19 and ACKR4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The chemokine receptor CCR7 drives leukocyte migration into and within lymph nodes (LNs). It is activated by chemokines CCL19 and CCL21, which are scavenged by the atypical chemokine receptor ACKR4. CCR7-dependent navigation is determined by the distribution of extracellular CCL19 and CCL21, which form concentration gradients at specific microanatomical locations. The mechanisms underpinning the establishment and regulation of these gradients are poorly understood. In this article, we have incorporated multiple biochemical processes describing the CCL19–CCL21–CCR7–ACKR4 network into our model of LN fluid flow to establish a computational model to investigate intranodal chemokine gradients. Importantly, the model recapitulates CCL21 gradients observed experimentally in B cell follicles and interfollicular regions, building confidence in its ability to accurately predict intranodal chemokine distribution. Parameter variation analysis indicates that the directionality of these gradients is robust, but their magnitude is sensitive to these key parameters: chemokine production, diffusivity, matrix binding site availability, and CCR7 abundance. The model indicates that lymph flow shapes intranodal CCL21 gradients, and that CCL19 is functionally important at the boundary between B cell follicles and the T cell area. It also predicts that ACKR4 in LNs prevents CCL19/CCL21 accumulation in efferent lymph, but does not control intranodal gradients. Instead, it attributes the disrupted interfollicular CCL21 gradients observed in Ackr4-deficient LNs to ACKR4 loss upstream. Our novel approach has therefore generated new testable hypotheses and alternative interpretations of experimental data. Moreover, it acts as a framework to investigate gradients at other locations, including those that cannot be visualized experimentally or involve other chemokines.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".