Fatty acid metabolism in<scp>CD</scp>8<sup>+</sup>T cell memory: Challenging current concepts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary CD 8 + T cells are key members of the adaptive immune response against infections and cancer. As we discuss in this review, these cells can present diverse metabolic requirements, which have been intensely studied during the past few years. Our current understanding suggests that aerobic glycolysis is a hallmark of activated CD 8 + T cells, while naive and memory (T mem ) cells often rely on oxidative phosphorylation, and thus mitochondrial metabolism is a crucial determinant of CD 8 + T mem cell development. Moreover, it has been proposed that CD 8 + T mem cells have a specific requirement for the oxidation of long‐chain fatty acids ( LC ‐ FAO ), a process modulated in lymphocytes by the enzyme CPT 1A. However, this notion relies heavily on the metabolic analysis of in vitro cultures and on chemical inhibition of CPT 1A. Therefore, we introduce more recent studies using genetic models to demonstrate that CPT 1A‐mediated LC ‐ FAO is dispensable for the development of CD 8 + T cell memory and protective immunity, and question the use of chemical inhibitors to target this enzyme. We discuss insights obtained from those and other studies analyzing the metabolic characteristics of CD 8 + T mem cells, and emphasize how T cells exhibit flexibility in their choice of metabolic fuel.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".