MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399205755 · doi:10.1126/sciimmunol.adj2654

GFI1B specifies developmental potential of innate lymphoid cell progenitors in the lungs

2024· article· en· W4399205755 on OpenAlexaff
Qiutong Huang, Wang Cao, Sophie Curio, Huiyang Yu, Renae Denman, Evelyn Chen, Jaring Schreuder, James Dight, M. Zeeshan Chaudhry, Nicolas Jacquelot, Verena C. Wimmer, Cyril Seillet, Tarik Möröy, Gabrielle T. Belz

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Immunology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicIL-33, ST2, and ILC Pathways
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInnate lymphoid cellProgenitor cellBiologyLungProgenitorTranscription factorBone marrowCell biologyStem cellImmunologyCancer researchInnate immune systemGeneticsMedicineInternal medicineGeneImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tissue-resident innate lymphoid cells (ILCs) play a vital role in the frontline defense of various tissues, including the lung. The development of type 2 ILCs (ILC2s) depends on transcription factors such as GATA3, RORα, GFI1, and Bcl11b; however, the factors regulating lung-resident ILC2s remain unclear. Through fate mapping analysis of the paralog transcription factors GFI1 and GFI1B, we show that GFI1 is consistently expressed during the transition from progenitor to mature ILC2s. In contrast, GFI1B expression is limited to specific subsets of bone marrow progenitors and lung-resident ILC progenitors. We found that GFI1B + lung ILC progenitors represent a multi-lineage subset with tissue-resident characteristics and the potential to form lung-derived ILC subsets and liver-resident ILC1s. Loss of GFI1B in bone marrow progenitors led to the selective loss of lung-resident IL-18R + ILCs and mature ILC2, subsequently preventing the emergence of effector ILCs that could protect the lung against inflammatory or tumor challenge.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience ImmunologySame topicIL-33, ST2, and ILC PathwaysFrench-language works237,207