B cell subsets have different capacities for phagocytosis and subsequent presentation of antigen to cognate T cells 2920
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Description B cells have been shown to be phagocytic under some circumstances. However, the phagocytic capacity of different B cell subsets and how this is linked to antigen presentation or other functions has not been characterized. To address this, we developed 2 µm phagocytic antigen conjugated bead targets that target phagocytic pathways including the BCR, scavenger, Fc, and complement pathways to study potential pathways by which B cells phagocytose both cognate and non-cognate antigen. We found that while follicular B2, marginal zone, and B1 B cells are highly phagocytic of BCR-engaging targets through their BCR, only peritoneal cavity B1 cells could uptake non-cognate antigen-coated beads or bacteria. Despite this, B1 cells were not effective at presenting antigen to activate cognate T cells or at killing phagocytosed bacteria. Finally, analysis of scRNA-seq data revealed that these differences in phagocytic capacity could not be explained by differential expression of relevant phagocytic receptors, implying that there is likely some form of regulation in place preventing non-cognate antigen uptake by follicular B2 cells. Our work will help contribute to a better understanding of non-classical antigen uptake mechanisms employed by B cells and their relevance to inflammation. Topic Categories Antigen and Dendritic Cell Processing, Presentation, and Biology (AGDC)
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".