MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2945266831 · doi:10.1101/640904

Male sex chromosomal complement exacerbates the pathogenicity of Th17 cells in a chronic model of CNS autoimmunity

2019· preprint· en· W2945266831 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoimmunityImmune systemDiseasePathogenicityMultiple sclerosisAdoptive cell transferPathogenesisAutoimmune disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Sex differences in the incidence and severity of multiple sclerosis (MS) have long been recognized. However, the underlying cellular and molecular mechanisms for why male sex is associated with more aggressive and debilitating disease remain poorly defined. Using an T cell adoptive transfer model of chronic EAE, we find that male Th17 cells induced disease of increased severity relative to female Th17 cells, irrespective of whether transferred to male or female recipients. Throughout the disease course, a greater frequency of male Th17 cells produced the heterodox cytokine IFNγ, a hallmark of pathogenic Th17 responses. Intriguingly, sex chromosomal complement, and not hormones, were responsible for the increased pathogenicity of male Th17 cells and an X-linked immune regulator, Jarid1c , was downregulated in both pathogenic male Th17 and CD4 + T cells from men with MS. Together, our data indicate that male sex critical regulates Th17 cell plasticity and pathogenicity via sex chromosomal complement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies→French-language works237,207→