MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4395050966 · doi:10.1101/2024.04.19.590239

Antigen affinity and site of immunization dictate B cell recall responses

2024· preprint· en· W4395050966 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Monique Termote, R. C. Marques, Erik Hyllner, Mariia V. Guryleva, M. Henskens, Andreas Brutscher, Isabel J. L. Baken, Xaquín Castro Dopico, Adrià Dalmau Gasull, Ben Murrell, Leonidas Stamatatos, Lisa S. Westerberg, Pia Dosenovic

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council CanadaVetenskapsrådetKarolinska Institutet
KeywordsRecallImmunizationAntigenImmunologyComputer sciencePsychologyBiologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Protective antibodies against HIV-1 require unusually high levels of somatic hypermutations (SHMs) introduced in germinal centers (GCs). To achieve this, a sequential vaccination approach was proposed. Using HIV-1 antibody knock-in mice with fate-mapping genes, we examined if antigen affinity affects the outcome of the B cell recall response. Compared to high affinity boost, low affinity boost resulted in decreased numbers of memory-derived B cells in secondary GCs, but with higher average SHM, indicating an affinity threshold for memory B cells to enter secondary GCs. Upon boosting local LNs, numbers of residual GC B cells increased independent on antigen affinity, while average SHM decreased. Our results demonstrate that antigen affinity and location of the boost affect the outcome of the B cell recall response. These results can help guide the design of vaccine immunogens aiming to selectively engage specific B cell clones for further SHM diversification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.216
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses→French-language works237,207→