Macrophage IL-4 polarization is restricted by soluble CD40 agonists and antigen-induced CD154 but not by constitutive CD154 expressed by CD4+ T cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stimulation of macrophages via CD40 promotes their classical activation. Therefore, CD154 (CD40 ligand) can be expected to oppose macrophage polarization and proliferation induced by IL-4. However, there are limited experimental data to support this, which is additionally complicated by the possibility of differential effects of CD40 agonists in different formats/contexts. Whereas canonically CD4+ T cells upregulate CD154 strongly following exposure to cognate antigen, naïve CD4+ cells constitutively express significant levels of CD154, which could be a tonic signal. Soluble CD154 and agonistic CD40 antibodies also trigger CD40 signaling. We explored these questions in a reductionist model of IL-4 delivery to mouse peritoneal cavity cells in vitro and in vivo. Soluble CD40 agonists inhibited M(IL-4) polarization, with a stronger effect on RELM-α than on Ym1 (Chil3), as well as inhibiting IL-4-induced proliferation. CD154 provided by CD4+ cells in the context of an antigen-specific interaction blunted macrophage RELM-α expression but did not affect Ym1. Macrophages negatively regulated, via CD40, constitutive cell-surface CD154 on naïve CD4+ cells, both in vitro and in vivo. The large peritoneal macrophages of CD40 KO mice showed a moderately enhanced RELM-α response to IL-4, but this was not a cell-autonomous effect. No differences between WT and CD40 KO mice were detected in IL-4-induced macrophage proliferation. We conclude that strong CD40 stimulation, including stimulation by CD154 expressed by antigen-specific CD4+ cells, blunts selected macrophage responses to IL-4, and that constitutive CD4+-cell CD154, in spite of interacting with CD40 on macrophages, does not directly influence macrophage responses to IL-4.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".