ReviewFrontiers in immunology2015
Functional Heterogeneity in CD4(+) T Cell Responses Against a Bacterial Pathogen.
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 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unveiling the gut-brain axis: structural and functional analogies between the gut and the choroid plexus vascular and immune barriers.Seminars in immunopathology · 2022Review
- Thymic epithelial cells require lipid kinase Vps34 for CD4 but not CD8 T cell selection.The Journal of experimental medicine · 2022Article
- Immunomodulation of endothelial cells induced by macrolide therapy in a model of septic stimulation.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2021Article
- Functional heterogeneity and adaptation of naive T cells in response to tonic TCR signals.Current opinion in immunology · 2021Review
- Augmented Innate and Adaptive Immune Responses Under Conditions of Diabetes-Filariasis Comorbidity.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Article
- Reporters of TCR signaling identify arthritogenic T cells in murine and human autoimmune arthritis.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- Adaptation by naïve CD4Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- T Cell Calcium Signaling Regulation by the Co-Receptor CD5.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To investigate how CD4(+) T cells function against a bacterial pathogen, we generated a Listeria monocytogenes-specific CD4(+) T cell model. In this system, two TCRtg mouse lines, LLO56 and LLO118, recognize the same immunodominant epitope (LLO190-205) of L. monocytogenes and have identical in vitro responses. However, in vivo LLO56 and LLO118 display vastly different responses during both primary and secondary infection. LLO118 dominates in the primary response and in providing CD8 T cell help. LLO56 predominates in the secondary response. We have also shown that both specific [T cell receptor (TCR)-mediated] and non-specific stimuli (bypassing the TCR) elicit distinct responses from the two transgenics, leading us to conclude that the strength of self-pMHC signaling during development tightly dictates the cell's future response in the periphery. Herein, we review our findings in this transfer system, focusing on the contribution of the immunomodulatory molecule CD5 and the importance of self-interaction in peripheral maintenance of the cell. We also discuss the manner in which individual TCR affinities to foreign and self-pMHC contribute to the outcome of an immune response; our assertion is that there exists a spectrum of possible T cell responses to recognition of cognate antigen during infection, adding immense diversity to the immune system's response to pathogens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.