Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26082777›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in immunology2015

Investigating Evolutionary Conservation of Dendritic Cell Subset Identity and Functions.

Thien-Phong Vu Manh, Nicolas Bertho, Anne Hosmalin, Isabelle Schwartz-Cornil, Marc Dalod

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Breast Cancer Immunity: It is TIME for the Next Chapter.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Ly6DNature communications · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Thien-Phong Vu ManhUM2, Centre d'Immunologie de Marseille-Luminy (CIML), Aix-Marseille University , Marseille , France ; U1104, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) , Marseille , France ; UMR7280, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) , Marseille , France.
Nicolas BerthoVirologie et Immunologie Moléculaires UR892, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique , Jouy-en-Josas , France.
Anne HosmalinINSERM U1016, Institut Cochin , Paris , France ; CNRS UMR8104 , Paris , France ; Université Paris Descartes , Paris , France ; Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Hôpital Cochin , Paris , France.
Isabelle Schwartz-CornilVirologie et Immunologie Moléculaires UR892, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique , Jouy-en-Josas , France.
Marc DalodUM2, Centre d'Immunologie de Marseille-Luminy (CIML), Aix-Marseille University , Marseille , France ; U1104, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) , Marseille , France ; UMR7280, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) , Marseille , France.

Funding

European Research Council 281225
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dendritic cells (DCs) were initially defined as mononuclear phagocytes with a dendritic morphology and an exquisite efficiency for naïve T-cell activation. DC encompass several subsets initially identified by their expression of specific cell surface molecules and later shown to excel in distinct functions and to develop under the instruction of different transcription factors or cytokines. Very few cell surface molecules are expressed in a specific manner on any immune cell type. Hence, to identify cell types, the sole use of a small number of cell surface markers in classical flow cytometry can be deceiving. Moreover, the markers currently used to define mononuclear phagocyte subsets vary depending on the tissue and animal species studied and even between laboratories. This has led to confusion in the definition of DC subset identity and in their attribution of specific functions. There is a strong need to identify a rigorous and consensus way to define mononuclear phagocyte subsets, with precise guidelines potentially applicable throughout tissues and species. We will discuss the advantages, drawbacks, and complementarities of different methodologies: cell surface phenotyping, ontogeny, functional characterization, and molecular profiling. We will advocate that gene expression profiling is a very rigorous, largely unbiased and accessible method to define the identity of mononuclear phagocyte subsets, which strengthens and refines surface phenotyping. It is uniquely powerful to yield new, experimentally testable, hypotheses on the ontogeny or functions of mononuclear phagocyte subsets, their molecular regulation, and their evolutionary conservation. We propose defining cell populations based on a combination of cell surface phenotyping, expression analysis of hallmark genes, and robust functional assays, in order to reach a consensus and integrate faster the huge but scattered knowledge accumulated by different laboratories on different cell types, organs, and species.

Indexed as

chickencomparative genomicshumanmononuclear phagocytesmousenon-human primatespigsheep

Identifiers

PMID26082777
PMCPMC4451681

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.