What did the T cell see? A deep-learning model of CD8+ T cell activation reveals sharp antigen discrimination at the single cell level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Immunotherapies such as checkpoint blockade antibodies to block T cell exhaustion have been successful in several cancers such as non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma, but limited in others (e.g., pancreatic or prostate carcinomas) owing to differences in tumor antigenicity. Therefore, quantifying tumor antigenicity is critical for successful immunotherapies. Our lab has shown that antigenicity can be encoded in a single parameter derived from bulk cytokine dynamics in ex vivo co-cultures between antigen presenting cells (APCs) and T cells. Here we built a model that can capture the antigenicity seen by individual cells. Using a custom robotic platform, we generated high-throughput kinetics of T cell activation in co-culture with APCs by analyzing cells at various timepoints across a large set of activation conditions. We performed spectral flow cytometry to measure the expression of up to 30 surface markers and intracellular signals per cell. To analyze our content-rich datasets, we designed a machine learning-based model that can classify the antigen seen by an individual cell using expression values from flow cytometry. The model performs well not only at classifying T cells (ROC-AUC > 0.91), but also APCs (ROC-AUC > 0.88), suggesting that each individual leukocyte may register the quality of antigen being presented. Blocking cytokine signaling disrupted this antigen classification. Our study demonstrates that every individual lymphocyte can bridge local and global response to achieve high discriminatory power of antigens.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".