MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detection of Cardiotrophin-like Cytokine Factor 1 (CLCF1) by flow cytometry

2021· article· en· W4319433881 on OpenAlexaff
Véronique Laplante, Ulysse Nadeau, Marine Rousseau, Sylvie Lesage, Jean‐François Gauchat, Sarah Pasquin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Immunology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicIL-33, ST2, and ILC Pathways
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyFlow cytometryCytokineImmune systemCell biologyMolecular biologyBone marrowSpleenImmunologyCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cardiotrophin-like Cytokine Factor 1 (CLCF1) belongs to the IL6 family of cytokines and possesses pro-neurotrophic and immuno-modulating functions. Coding mRNA for CLCF1 has been detected in primary and secondary lymphoid organs (i.e. lymph nodes, spleen and bone marrow), as well as in the lungs and feminine reproductive organs. Modulation of CLCF1’s mRNA levels has been associated with the Th17 polarization in CD4+ T cells. However, little information is available regarding CLCF1 protein levels in these tissues or the nature of the immune cells responsible for its production. This can be explained by a lack of in situ detection options for CLCF1. We have therefore developed a methodology for the detection of human and murine CLCF1 by flow cytometry in permeabilized cells. This technique has been validated using derivatives of the Ba/F3 cell line in which cDNAs coding for human and murine CLCF1 were introduced by transduction with recombinant retroviruses. We are currently using this approach to study CLCF1 production by human and murine immune cells. Preliminary results indicate a production of CLCF1 by Th17 T cells. The development of a method to detect CLCF1 by flow cytometry will be beneficial for the study of CLCF1’s functions in the regulation of the immune response.

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)0.000
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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of ImmunologySame topicIL-33, ST2, and ILC PathwaysFrench-language works237,207