Machine learning analysis of the T cell receptor repertoire identifies sequence features of self-reactivity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The T cell receptor (TCR) determines specificity and affinity for both foreign and self-peptides presented by the major histocompatibility complex (MHC). Although the strength of TCR interactions with self-pMHC impacts T cell function, it has been challenging to identify TCR sequence features that predict T cell fate. To discern patterns distinguishing TCRs from naive CD4 + T cells with low versus high self-reactivity, we used data from 42 mice to train a machine learning (ML) algorithm that identifies population-level differences between TCR β sequence sets. This approach revealed that weakly self-reactive T cell populations were enriched for longer CDR3 β regions and acidic amino acids. We tested our ML predictions of self-reactivity using retrogenic mice with fixed TCR β sequences. Extrapolating our analyses to independent datasets, we predicted high self-reactivity for regulatory T cells and slightly reduced self-reactivity for T cells responding to chronic infections. Our analyses suggest a potential trade-off between TCR repertoire diversity and self-reactivity. A record of this paper's transparent peer review process is included in the supplemental information.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it