MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037354511 · doi:10.1242/jcs.245985

Effects of a local auxiliary protein on the two-dimensional affinity of a TCR–peptide MHC interaction

2020· article· en· W3037354511 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria Junghans, Manto Chouliara, Ana Mafalda Santos, Deborah Hatherley, Jan Petersen, Tommy Dam, Lena Svensson, Jamie Rossjohn, Simon J. Davis, Peter Jönsson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicT-cell and B-cell Immunology
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilAustralian Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsBiologyT-cell receptorJurkat cellsMajor histocompatibility complexReceptorT cellCell biologyLigand (biochemistry)Plasma protein bindingMHC restrictionMolecular biologyAntigenBiophysicsImmune systemBiochemistryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The affinity of T-cell receptors (TCRs) for major histocompatibility complex molecules (MHCs) presenting cognate antigens likely determines whether T cells initiate immune responses, or not. There exist few measurements of two-dimensional (2D) TCR–MHC interactions, and the effect of auxiliary proteins on binding is unexplored. Here, Jurkat T-cells expressing the MHC molecule HLA-DQ8-glia-α1 and the ligand of an adhesion protein (rat CD2) were allowed to bind supported lipid bilayers (SLBs) presenting fluorescently labelled L3-12 TCR and rat CD2, allowing measurements of binding unconfounded by cell signaling effects or co-receptor binding. The 2D Kd for L3-12 TCR binding to HLA-DQ8-glia-α1, of 14±5 molecules/μm2 (mean±s.d.), was only marginally influenced by including CD2 up to ∼200 bound molecules/μm2 but higher CD2 densities reduced the affinity up to 1.9-fold. Cell–SLB contact size increased steadily with ligand density without affecting binding for contacts at up to ∼20% of total cell area, but beyond this lamellipodia appeared, giving an apparent increase in bound receptors of up to 50%. Our findings show how parameters other than the specific protein–protein interaction can influence binding behavior at cell–cell contacts.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicT-cell and B-cell ImmunologyFrench-language works237,207