Nonspecific CD8 <sup>+</sup> T Cells and Dendritic Cells/Macrophages Participate in Formation of CD8 <sup>+</sup> T Cell-Mediated Clusters against Malaria Liver-Stage Infection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT CD8 + T cells are the major effector cells that protect against malaria liver-stage infection, forming clusters around Plasmodium -infected hepatocytes and eliminating parasites after a prolonged interaction with these hepatocytes. We aimed to investigate the roles of specific and nonspecific CD8 + T cells in cluster formation and protective immunity. To this end, we used Plasmodium berghei ANKA expressing ovalbumin as well as CD8 + T cells from transgenic mice expressing a T cell receptor specific for ovalbumin (OT-I) and CD8 + T cells specific for an unrelated antigen, respectively. While antigen-specific CD8 + T cells were essential for cluster formation, both antigen-specific and nonspecific CD8 + T cells joined the clusters. However, nonspecific CD8 + T cells did not significantly contribute to protective immunity. In the livers of infected mice, specific CD8 + T cells expressed high levels of CD25, compatible with a local, activated effector phenotype. In vivo imaging of the liver revealed that specific CD8 + T cells interact with CD11c + cells around infected hepatocytes. The depletion of CD11c + cells virtually eliminated the clusters in the liver, leading to a significant decrease in protection. These experiments reveal an essential role of hepatic CD11c + dendritic cells and presumably macrophages in the formation of CD8 + T cell clusters around Plasmodium -infected hepatocytes. Once cluster formation is triggered by parasite-specific CD8 + T cells, specific and unrelated activated CD8 + T cells join the clusters in a chemokine- and dendritic cell-dependent manner. Nonspecific CD8 + T cells seem to play a limited role in protective immunity against Plasmodium parasites.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".