MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969596592 · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2019.02084

Quantification of T-Cell and B-Cell Replication History in Aging, Immunodeficiency, and Newborn Screening

2019· article· en· W2969596592 on OpenAlexaff
Ruud H J Verstegen, Pei M. Aui, Eliza Watson, Samuel De Jong, Sophinus J. W. Bartol, Julian J. Bosco, Paul Cameron, Rob G. Stirling, Esther de Vries, Jacques J. M. van Dongen, Menno C. van Zelm

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Immunology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunodeficiency and Autoimmune Disorders
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilRijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en MilieuJeffrey Modell Foundation
KeywordsImmunodeficiencyReplication (statistics)Cellular AgingCellMedicineBiologyVirologyImmunologyGeneticsDNAImmune systemTelomere

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantification of T-cell receptor excision circles (TRECs) has impacted on human T-cell research, but interpretations on T-cell replication have been limited due to the lack of a genomic coding joint. We here overcome this limitation with multiplex TRG rearrangement quantification (detecting ~0.98 alleles per TCRαβ+ T cell) and the HSB-2 cell line with a retrovirally introduced TREC construct. We uncovered 10 cell divisions in effector memory T-cell subsets. Furthermore, we show that TREC dilution with age in healthy adults results mainly from increased T cell replication history. This proliferation was significantly increased in patients with predominantly antibody deficiency. Finally, Guthrie cards of neonates with Down syndrome have fewer T and B cells than controls, with similar T-cell and slightly higher B-cell replication. Thus, combined analysis of TRG coding joints and TREC signal joints can be utilized to quantify in vivo T-cell replication, and has direct applications for research into ageing, immunodeficiency and newborn screening.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in ImmunologySame topicImmunodeficiency and Autoimmune DisordersFrench-language works237,207