Maintenance and loss of endocytic organelle integrity: mechanisms and implications for antigen cross-presentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The membranes of endosomes, phagosomes and macropinosomes can become damaged by the physical properties of internalized cargo, by active pathogenic invasion or by cellular processes, including endocytic maturation. Loss of membrane integrity is often deleterious and is, therefore, prevented by mitigation and repair mechanisms. However, it can occasionally be beneficial and actively induced by cells. Here, we summarize the mechanisms by which cells, in particular phagocytes, try to prevent membrane damage and how, when this fails, they repair or destroy damaged endocytic organelles. We also detail how one type of phagocyte, the dendritic cell, can deliberately trigger localized damage to endocytic organelles to allow for major histocompatibility complex class I presentation of exogenous antigens and initiation of CD8 + T-cell responses to viruses and tumours. Our review highlights mechanisms for the regulation of endocytic organelle membrane integrity at the intersection of cell biology and immunology that could be co-opted for improving vaccination and intracellular drug delivery.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".