Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24167504›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in immunology2013

The control of the specificity of CD4 T cell responses: thresholds, breakpoints, and ceilings.

Andrea J Sant, Francisco A Chaves, Scott A Leddon, Jacqueline Tung

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. T Cell Epitope Predictions.Annual review of immunology · 2020
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. HLA-DO Modulates the Diversity of the MHC-II Self-peptidome.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The Timing of T Cell Priming and Cycling.Frontiers in immunology · 2015
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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.

Andrea J SantDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, David H. Smith Center for Vaccine Biology and Immunology, University of Rochester Medical Center , Rochester, NY , USA.
Francisco A Chaves
Scott A Leddon
Jacqueline Tung

Funding

Immunodominance in CD4 T Cell ResponsesR01AI051542 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI SANT, ANDREA JANINE · 2002 to 2012
$3.6M
NIAID NIH HHS HHSN266200700008CNIAID NIH HHS R01 AI051542
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been known for over 25 years that CD4 T cell responses are restricted to a finite number of peptide epitopes within pathogens or protein vaccines. These selected peptide epitopes are termed "immunodominant." Other peptides within the antigen that can bind to host MHC molecules and recruit CD4 T cells as single peptides are termed "cryptic" because they fail to induce responses when expressed in complex proteins or when in competition with other peptides during the immune response. In the last decade, our laboratory has evaluated the mechanisms that underlie the preferential specificity of CD4 T cells and have discovered that both intracellular events within antigen presenting cells, particular selective DM editing, and intercellular regulatory pathways, involving IFN-γ, indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase, and regulatory T cells, play a role in selecting the final peptide specificity of CD4 T cells. In this review, we summarize our findings, discuss the implications of this work on responses to pathogens and vaccines and speculate on the logic of these regulatory events.

Indexed as

CD4 T cellsHLA-DMimmunodominanceimmunoregulationMHC

Identifiers

PMID24167504
PMCPMC3805957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.