A mathematical modeling technique to understand the role of decoy receptors in ligand-receptor interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ligand-receptor interaction is fundamental to many cellular processes in eukaryotic cells such as cell migration, proliferation, adhesion, signaling and so on. Cell migration is a central process in the development of organisms. Receptor induced chemo-tactic sensitivity plays an important role in cell migration. However, recently some receptors identified as decoy receptors, obstruct some mechanisms of certain regular receptors. DcR3 is one such important decoy receptor, generally found in glioma cell, RCC cell and many various malignant cells which obstruct some mechanism including apoptosis cell-signaling, cell inflammation, cell migration. The goal of our work is to mathematically formulate ligand-receptor interaction induced cell migration in the presence of decoy receptors. We develop here a novel mathematical model, consisting of four coupled partial differential equations which predict the movement of glioma cells due to the reaction-kinetic mechanism between regular receptors CD95, its ligand CD95L and decoy receptors DcR3 as obtained in experimental results. The aim is to measure the number of cells in the chamber's filter for different concentrations of ligand in presence of decoy receptors and compute the distance travelled by the cells inside filter due to cell migration. Using experimental results, we validate our model which suggests that the concentration of ligands plays an important role in cell migration.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".