Understanding repertoire sequencing data through a multiscale computational model of the germinal center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sequencing of B-cell and T-cell immune receptor repertoires helps us to understand the adaptive immune response, although it only provides information about the clonotypes (lineages) and their frequencies and not about, for example, their affinity or antigen (Ag) specificity. To further characterize the identified clones, usually with special attention to the particularly abundant ones (dominant), additional time-consuming or expensive experiments are generally required. Here, we present an extension of a multiscale model of the germinal center (GC) that we previously developed to gain more insight in B-cell repertoires. We compare the extent that these simulated repertoires deviate from experimental repertoires established from single GCs, blood, or tissue. Our simulations show that there is a limited correlation between clonal abundance and affinity and that there is large affinity variability among same-ancestor (same-clone) subclones. Our simulations suggest that low-abundance clones and subclones, might also be of interest since they may have high affinity for the Ag. We show that the fraction of plasma cells (PCs) with high B-cell receptor (BcR) mRNA content in the GC does not significantly affect the number of dominant clones derived from single GCs by sequencing BcR mRNAs. Results from these simulations guide data interpretation and the design of follow-up experiments.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".