Modulation of CRTh2 expression on allergen‐specific T cells following peptide immunotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Allergen immunotherapy using synthetic peptide T‐cell epitopes (Cat‐PAD) from the major cat allergen Fel d 1 has been shown, in allergen exposure studies, to significantly reduce symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in cat‐allergic subjects. However, the immunological mechanisms underlying clinical benefit remain only partially understood. Since previous studies of whole allergen immunotherapy demonstrated a reduction in the frequency of allergen‐specific (MHC II tetramer+) CD4+ T cells expressing the chemokine receptor CRTh2, we assessed the impact of Cat‐PAD on the frequency and functional phenotype of Fel d 1‐specific CD4+ T cells. Methods Using before and after treatment samples from subjects enrolled in a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of Cat‐PAD, we employed Fel d 1 MHC II tetramers and flow cytometry to analyze the expression of chemokine receptors CCR3, CCR4, CCR5, CXCR3, and CRTh2, together with markers of memory phenotype (CD27 and CCR7) on Fel d 1‐specific CD4+ T cells. Results No statistically significant change in the frequency of Fel d 1‐specific CD4+ T cells, nor in their expression of chemokine receptors or memory phenotype, was observed. However, a significant reduction in cell surface expression of CRTh2 was observed between the placebo and active groups (P = 0.047). Conclusions Peptide immunotherapy with Cat‐PAD does not significantly alter the frequency or phenotype of Fel d 1‐CD4+ T cells, but may decrease their expression of CRTh2.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".