A Suction Blister Protocol to Study Human T-cell Recall Responses <em>In Vivo</em>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cutaneous antigen-recall models allow for studies of human memory responses in vivo. When combined with skin suction blister (SB) induction, this model offers accessibility to rare populations of antigen-specific T-cells representative of the cellular memory response as well as the cytokine microenvironment in situ. This report describes the practical procedure of a cutaneous recall, an SB induction, and a harvest of antigen-specific T-cells. To exemplify the method, the tuberculin skin test is used for antigenic recall in individuals who, prior to this study, underwent a Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccination against an infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Finally, examples of multiplex and flow cytometric analyses of SB specimens are provided, illustrating high fractions of antigen-specific polyfunctional CD4+ T-cells available by this sampling method compared with cells isolated from the blood. The method described here is safe and minimally invasive, provides a unique opportunity to study both innate and adaptive immune responses in vivo, and may be beneficial to a broad community of researchers working with cell-mediated immunity and human memory responses, in the context of vaccine development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".