ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparable restimulation of human T cells activated with CD3/CD28 beads versus soluble antibody complexes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ex vivo T-cell activation is critical in both basic immunology and clinical applications, such as CAR-T cell therapy. CD3/CD28 antibody-coated beads and soluble antibody complexes are widely used, yet direct comparisons remain limited and often contradictory. We longitudinally profiled human T cells stimulated with two widely used activation reagents, one bead-based and the other pre‑formed soluble antibody complexes, to clarify these differences. Both approaches supported robust expansion and stable CD4/CD8 ratios, indicating comparable proliferative capacity. Beads induced earlier, stronger activation and rapid effector memory differentiation, whereas the soluble antibody complex reagent promoted slower activation and preserved central memory subsets. Upon restimulation, however, both conditions efficiently reactivated and converged toward effector memory differentiation with sustained TIM‑3 expression, consistent with chronic stimulation. This convergence suggests that restimulation is a major determinant of long‑term phenotype, potentially overriding differences introduced by the initial activation reagent. Together, our findings reconcile prior inconsistencies and demonstrate that while expansion is comparable, activation and differentiation diverge across these commonly used reagents, providing a framework to tailor activation strategies to specific immunotherapy outcomes.
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.