<i>Hox</i>‐driven conditional immortalization of myeloid and lymphoid progenitors: Uses, advantages, and future potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Those who study macrophage biology struggle with the decision whether to utilize primary macrophages derived directly from mice or opt for the convenience and genetic tractability of immortalized macrophage-like cell lines in in vitro studies. Particularly when it comes to studying phagocytosis and phagosomal maturation-a signature cellular process of the macrophage-many commonly used cell lines are not representative of what occurs in primary macrophages. A system developed by Mark Kamps' group, that utilizes conditionally constitutive activity of Hox transcription factors (Hoxb8 and Hoxa9) to immortalize differentiation-competent myeloid cell progenitors of mice, offers an alternative to the macrophage/macrophage-like dichotomy. In this resource, we will review the use of Hoxb8 and Hoxa9 as hematopoietic regulators to conditionally immortalize murine hematopoietic progenitor cells which retain their ability to differentiate into many functional immune cell types including macrophages, neutrophils, basophils, osteoclasts, eosinophils, dendritic cells, as well as limited potential for the generation of lymphocytes. We further demonstrate that the use of macrophages derived from Hoxb8/Hoxa9 immortalized progenitors and their similarities to bone marrow-derived macrophages. To supplement the existing data, mass spectrometry-based proteomics, flow cytometry, cytology, and in vitro phagosomal assays were conducted on macrophages derived from Hoxb8 immortalized progenitors and compared to bone marrow-derived macrophages and the macrophage-like cell line J774. We additionally propose the use of a standardized nomenclature to describe cells derived from the Hoxb8/Hoxa9 system in anticipation of their expanded use in the study of leukocyte cell biology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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".