MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033361188 · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.2000293

FCRL4 Is an Fc Receptor for Systemic IgA, but Not Mucosal Secretory IgA

2020· article· en· W3033361188 on OpenAlexafffund
Yanling Liu, Sofiya Goroshko, Leslie Y. T. Leung, Shilan Dong, Srijit Khan, Paolo Campisi, Evan J. Propst, Nikolaus E. Wolter, Eyal Grunebaum, Götz R. A. Ehrhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and B-cell Immunology
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSecretory IgARecombinant DNAReceptorSecretory componentImmunoglobulin AAntibodyImmunologyChemistryBiologyBiochemistryImmunoglobulin GGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fc receptor-like (FCRL) 4 is an immunoregulatory receptor expressed on a subpopulation of human memory B cells of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue. Fc receptor function of FCRL4 was demonstrated by binding of IgA to FCRL4 following heat aggregation of the Ig. In this study, we demonstrate that FCRL4 recognizes J chain-linked systemic IgA in the absence of heat aggregation. We further demonstrate that mucosal secretory IgA is not recognized by FCRL4 and that systemic IgA binding can be competitively inhibited by recombinant secretory component protein. Finally, we provide evidence that primary FCRL4-bearing human memory B cells are constitutively bound to IgA. Our study provides a mechanism for the negative regulatory activity of FCRL4 on AgR-mediated B cell activation.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicT-cell and B-cell ImmunologyFrench-language works237,207