Critical role for Slam/SAP signaling in the thymic developmental programming of IL-17- and IFN-γ-producing γδ T cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During thymic development, γδ T cells commit to either an IFN-γ- or an IL-17-producing phenotype through mechanisms that remain unclear. Here, we investigated whether the SLAM/SAP signaling pathway played a role in the functional programming of thymic γδ T cells. Characterization of SLAM family receptor expression revealed that thymic γδ T cell subsets were each marked by distinct co-expression profiles of SLAMF1, SLAMF4, and SLAMF6. In the thymus, immature CD24 hi Vγ1 and Vγ4 γδ T cells were largely contained within a SLAMF1 + SLAMF6 + double positive (DP) population, while mature CD24 low subsets were either SLAMF1 + or SLAMF6 + single positive (SP) cells. In the periphery, SLAMF1 and SLAMF6 expression on Vγ1, Vγ4, and Vγ6 T cells distinguished IL-17- and IFN-γ-producing subsets, respectively. Disruption of SLAM family receptor signaling through deletion of SAP resulted in impaired thymic γδ T cell maturation at the CD24 hi SLAMF1 + SLAMF6 + DP stage that was associated with a decreased frequency of CD44 + RORγt + γδ T cells. These defects were in turn associated with impaired γδ T cell IL-17 and IFN-γ production in both the thymus as well as in peripheral tissues. The role for SAP was subset-specific, as Vγ1, Vγ4, Vγ5, but not Vγ6 subsets were SAP-dependent. Together, these data suggest that the SLAM/SAP signaling pathway regulates a critical checkpoint in the functional programming of IL-17 and IFN-γ-producing γδ T cell subsets during thymic 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".