Cross talk between human regulatory T cells and antigen‐presenting cells: Lessons for clinical applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regulatory T cells (Tregs) have a critical role in maintaining self-tolerance and immune homeostasis. There is much interest in using Tregs as a cell therapy to re-establish tolerance in conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease and type 1 diabetes, with many ongoing clinical studies testing the safety and efficacy of this approach. Manufacturing of Tregs for therapy typically involves ex vivo expansion to obtain sufficient cell numbers for infusion and comes with the risk of altering the activity of key biological processes. However, this process also offers an opportunity to tailor Treg function to maximize in vivo activity. In this review, we focus on the roles of antigen-presenting cells (APCs) in the generation and function of Tregs in humans. In addition to stimulating the development of Tregs, APCs activate Tregs and provide signals that induce specialized functional and homing marker expression. Cross talk between Tregs and APCs is a critical, often under-appreciated, aspect of Treg biology, with APCs mediating the key properties of infectious tolerance and bystander suppression. Understanding the biology of human Treg-APC interactions will reveal new ways to optimize Treg-based therapeutic approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".