MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153488936 · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-22359-x

Structural plasticity of KIR2DL2 and KIR2DL3 enables altered docking geometries atop HLA-C

2021· article· en· W3153488936 on OpenAlexaff
Shoeib Moradi, Sanda Stankovic, Geraldine M. O’Connor, Phillip Pymm, Bruce J. MacLachlan, Camilla Faoro, Christelle Retière, Lucy C. Sullivan, Philippa M. Saunders, Jacqueline Widjaja, Shea Cox-Livingstone, Jamie Rossjohn, Andrëw G. Brööks, J.P. Vivian

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune Cell Function and Interaction
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman leukocyte antigenHLA-CBiologyDocking (animal)AllotypeEpitopeGeneticsAntigen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The closely related inhibitory killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIR), KIR2DL2 and KIR2DL3, regulate the activation of natural killer cells (NK) by interacting with the human leukocyte antigen-C1 (HLA-C1) group of molecules. KIR2DL2, KIR2DL3 and HLA-C1 are highly polymorphic, with this variation being associated with differences in the onset and progression of some human diseases. However, the molecular bases underlying these associations remain unresolved. Here, we determined the crystal structures of KIR2DL2 and KIR2DL3 in complex with HLA-C*07:02 presenting a self-epitope. KIR2DL2 differed from KIR2DL3 in docking modality over HLA-C*07:02 that correlates with variabilty of recognition of HLA-C1 allotypes. Mutagenesis assays indicated differences in the mechanism of HLA-C1 allotype recognition by KIR2DL2 and KIR2DL3. Similarly, HLA-C1 allotypes differed markedly in their capacity to inhibit activation of primary NK cells. These functional differences derive, in part, from KIR2DS2 suggesting KIR2DL2 and KIR2DL3 binding geometries combine with other factors to distinguish HLA-C1 functional recognition.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations60
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicImmune Cell Function and InteractionFrench-language works237,207