Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23100516›Full record

ArticleJournal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950)2012

Dynamics of CD4(+) T cell responses against Listeria monocytogenes.

Frederik Graw, K Scott Weber, Paul M Allen, Alan S Perelson

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Conversion of effector CD4Cellular & molecular immunology · 2021
    Article
  3. Innate and Adaptive Immune Responses duringMicrobiology spectrum · 2019
    Article
  4. Tuning T Cell Signaling Sensitivity Alters the Behavior of CD4Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) · 2018
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Frederik GrawTheoretical Biology and Biophysics, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA.
K Scott Weber
Paul M Allen
Alan S Perelson
Los Alamos National Laboratory · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

Visualizing, Quantifying, and Modeling of T Cell Response to Listeria InfectionP01AI071195 · NIAID · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI DUSTIN, MICHAEL LORAN · 2006 to 2010
$8.1M
Modeling Viral and T Lymphocyte DynamicsR01OD011095 · OD · TRIAD NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC · PI PERELSON, ALAN S · 2012 to 2024
$5.0M
Immune System Modeling/HIVR01AI028433 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIF-LOS ALAMOS NAT LAB · PI PERELSON, ALAN S · 1990 to 2021
$3.7M
RECOGNITION AND SIGNALING IN POSITIVE SELECTION OF CD4+ T CELLSR01AI024157 · NIAID · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI ALLEN, PAUL M · 1987 to 2016
$2.5M
Immune System Modeling/HIVR37AI028433 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIF-LOS ALAMOS NAT LAB · PI PERELSON, ALAN S · 2002 to 2011
$2.4M
NIAID NIH HHS P01 AI071195NIAID NIH HHS P01-AI071195NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI024157NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI028433NIAID NIH HHS R37 AI028433NIAID NIH HHS R37-AI028433NIH HHS R01 OD011095NIH HHS R01-OD011095
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The generation of CD4(+) T cell memory cells is poorly understood. Recently, two different murine CD4(+) TCR transgenic T cell lines, LLO118 and LLO56, both specific for the same epitope but differing in their expression level of the cell surface protein CD5, were generated. Notably, these cell lines showed different behavior upon primary and secondary exposure to Listeria monocytogenes. Whereas LLO118 showed a stronger primary response and generated more robust CD8(+) T cell help upon secondary exposure, LLO56 CD4(+) T cells had a dramatically better recall response. Using different mathematical models, we analyzed the dynamics of the two CD4(+) T cell lines in mice during infection with L. monocytogenes. Our models allowed the quantitative comparison of the two T cell lines and provided predictions for the conversion of naive T cells into memory cells. LLO118 CD4(+) T cells are estimated to have a higher proliferation rate than LLO56 CD4(+) T cells upon primary exposure. This difference can be explained by the lower expression level of CD5 on LLO118 CD4(+) T cells. Furthermore, LLO56 memory cells are predicted to have a 3-fold longer half-life than LLO118 memory cells ($${t}_{1/2}^{\hbox{ LLO }118}$$ ≈ 4.3 to 5 d and $${t}_{1/2}^{\hbox{ LLO }56}$$ ≈ 11.5 to 13.9 d). Although both cell lines differ in their memory capabilities, our analysis indicates no difference in the rate at which memory cells are generated. Our results show that different CD5 expression levels influence the proliferation dynamics of activated naive CD4(+) T cells while leaving the conversion rate of those cells into memory cells unaffected.

Indexed as

AnimalsCD4-Positive T-LymphocytesCD5 AntigensCD8-Positive T-LymphocytesCell DifferentiationCell LineEpitopes, T-LymphocyteGene ExpressionHalf-LifeImmunologic MemoryListeria monocytogenesListeriosisLymphocyte ActivationMiceMice, Inbred C57BLModels, StatisticalCD5 AntigensEpitopes, T-Lymphocyte

Identifiers

PMID23100516
PMCPMC3504191
OpenAlexW2120304289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.