MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400007677 · doi:10.1093/intimm/dxae037

Synchronized development of thymic eosinophils and thymocytes

2024· article· en· W4400007677 on OpenAlexaff
Ayami Ota, Takahiro Iguchi, Sachiko Nitta, Ryunosuke Muro, Nanami Mino, Masayuki Tsukasaki, Josef Penninger, Takeshi Nitta, Hiroshi Takayanagi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Immunology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceJapan Agency for Medical Research and Development
KeywordsThymocyteEosinophilCD8BiologyImmunologyT cellCellular differentiationCell biologyImmune systemGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thymus is an organ required for T cell development and is also an eosinophil-rich organ; however, the nature and function of thymic eosinophils remain unclear. Here, we characterized the gene expression and differentiation mechanism of thymic eosinophils in mice. Thymic eosinophils showed a distinct gene expression profile compared with other organ-resident eosinophils. The number of thymic eosinophils was controlled by medullary thymic epithelial cells (mTECs). In Rag-deficient mice, the unique gene expression signature of thymic eosinophils was lost but restored by pre-T cell receptor signalling, which induces CD4+ CD8+ thymocyte differentiation, indicating that T cell differentiation beyond the CD4- CD8- stage is necessary and sufficient for the induction of thymic eosinophils. These results demonstrate that thymic eosinophils are quantitatively and qualitatively regulated by mTECs and developing thymocytes, respectively, suggesting that thymic eosinophils are a distinct, thymus-specific cell subset, induced by interactions with thymic cells.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational ImmunologySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207