Cited by 172

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Murine thymic selection quantified using a unique method to capture deleted T cells

Stritesky, Gretta L., Xing, Yan, Erickson, Jami R., Kalekar, Lokesh A., Wang, Xiaodan, Mueller, Daniel L., Jameson, Stephen C., Hogquist, Kristin A.·2013·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Thymic positive and negative selection events generate a T-cell repertoire that is MHC restricted and self-tolerant. The number of T cells undergoing positive and negative selection in normal mice has never been firmly established. We generated mice that lack the proapoptotic molecule Bim (bcl2l11) together with a Nur77 GFP transgene, which allowed the identification and enumeration of T cells that would normally undergo clonal deletion. Using this method, we report the striking observation that six times more cells undergo negative selection than complete positive selection. Seventy-five percent of the negatively selected cells are deleted at the double positive stage in the thymic cortex, compared with 25% at the single positive stage in the medulla. The fact that more thymocytes are highly reactive to MHC than are weakly reactive is inconsistent with a random model of recognition and suggests that T-cell recognition is MHC biased. Furthermore, Bim −/− mice had an increased number of GFP hi cells in the peripheral lymphoid tissue and a corresponding increase in antigen experienced or anergic cell phenotype. Our data also show that the CD4+ T cells that are clonally deleted experienced only slightly stronger T-cell receptor signaling than those that developed into regulatory T cells.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1217532110

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. 10.1038/nri1085 · DOI
  2. 10.1002/eji.1830100310 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/372100a0 · DOI
  4. 10.1038/383081a0 · DOI
  5. 10.1084/jem.185.3.377 · DOI
  6. 10.1084/jem.186.7.1149 · DOI
  7. 10.1084/jem.20110308 · DOI
  8. 10.1126/science.286.5445.1735 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1084/jem.20080866 · DOI
  10. 10.1186/gb-2007-8-1-r12 · DOI
  11. 10.4049/jimmunol.179.2.837 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.coi.2010.08.003 · DOI
  13. 10.4049/jimmunol.0902181 · DOI
  14. 10.1371/journal.pone.0008675 · DOI
  15. 10.1084/jem.162.3.802 · DOI
  16. 10.1084/jem.175.3.731 · DOI
  17. 10.1038/nri3155 · DOI
  18. 10.1084/jem.20091033 · DOI
  19. 10.1038/ni.1739 · DOI
  20. 10.4049/jimmunol.1101311 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.immuni.2012.05.030 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81905-4 · DOI
  23. 10.1146/annurev.immunol.26.021607.090421 · DOI
  24. 10.1038/nature07812 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.immuni.2011.10.012 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.immuni.2007.10.007 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.cell.2005.05.013 · DOI
  28. 10.1146/annurev-immunol-020711-075035 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.immuni.2007.11.022 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/j.immuni.2007.11.021 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.immuni.2012.07.009 · DOI
  32. 10.1073/pnas.87.7.2579 · DOI
  33. 10.1126/scisignal.2000702 · DOI
  34. 10.1084/jem.20070601 · DOI

Cited by

See all 172

Metadata

Authors
Stritesky, G. L., Xing, Y., Erickson, J. R., Kalekar, L. A., Wang, X., Mueller, D. L., Jameson, S. C., & Hogquist, K. A.
Affiliations
  • Departments of aLaboratory Medicine and Pathology and
  • Medicine, and
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2013-03-04
Volume
110
Issue
12
Pages
4679-4684
ISSN
  • 0027-8424
  • 1091-6490
Cited by
172
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Murine thymic selection quantified using a unique method to capture deleted T cells. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1217532110
The paper
Stritesky, G. L., Xing, Y., Erickson, J. R., Kalekar, L. A., Wang, X., Mueller, D. L., Jameson, S. C., & Hogquist, K. A. (2013). Murine thymic selection quantified using a unique method to capture deleted T cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217532110