ArticleScientific reports2025
A comparative mathematical modeling study of phenotypic approaches to T cell activation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Leveraging mathematical models to predict and control T-cell activation.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
T cells use their T cell antigen receptors (TCRs) to recognize peptides presented by major histocompatibility complex molecules (pMHC). These peptides may be low-affinity self-peptides or high-affinity foreign peptides from pathogens. Despite recognizing a broad range of affinities, TCRs trigger significant immune responses only to strongly binding foreign peptides. The mechanisms enabling T cells to distinguish diverse antigens with high sensitivity remain a key focus of research. Our goal is to analyze mathematical models of T-cell activation for their ability to replicate key experimental features like optimal response, specificity, sensitivity, and antigen discrimination. We analyzed nine models using mathematical and numerical methods to examine their solutions, responses, and parameter sensitivity. We found that in all models, except kinetic proofreading with negative feedback, solutions converged to a unique steady state. Most response functions defined by ligand concentration and dissociation time showed an optimum value, except for the Occupancy, KPR, and stabilizing activation chain models. Models like KPR with negative feedback, limited/sustained signaling, and incoherent feedforward loops effectively reproduced the key features of specificity, sensitivity, and antigen discrimination. Our sensitivity analysis identified phosphorylation rate as a key parameter influencing most model outcomes. This study highlights the strengths and limitations of current T-cell activation models, suggests directions for improving to enhance their predictive accuracy in future research.
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.