Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 256

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Heterogeneity of Mouse Spleen Dendritic Cells: In Vivo Phagocytic Activity, Expression of Macrophage Markers, and Subpopulation Turnover

Open access
Leenen, Pieter J M, Radošević, Katarina, Voerman, Jane S A, Salomon, Benoı̂t, van Rooijen, Nico, Klatzmann, David, van Ewijk, Willem·1998·The Journal of Immunology
DOI 10.4049/jimmunol.160.5.2166
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In the normal mouse spleen, two distinct populations of dendritic cells (DC) are present that differ in microanatomical location. The major population of marginal DC is found in the “marginal zone bridging channels” and extends into the red pulp. The interdigitating cells (IDC) are localized in the T cell areas in the white pulp. The aim of the present study was to characterize these two splenic DC populations with regard to their phenotype, in vivo phagocytic function, and turnover. Both marginal DC and IDC are CD11c+ and CD13+, but only IDC are NLDC-145+ and CD8α+. Notably, both populations, when freshly isolated, express the macrophage markers F4/80, BM8, and Mac-1. To study the phagocytic capacity of these cells, we employed the macrophage “suicide” technique by injecting liposomes loaded with clodronate i.v. Marginal DC, but not IDC, were eliminated by this treatment. Phagocytosis of DiI-labeled liposomes by DC confirmed this finding. The two DC populations differed significantly with regard to their turnover rates, as studied in a transgenic mouse model of conditional depletion of DC populations with high turnover. In these mice, marginal DC were completely eliminated, but the IDC population remained virtually intact. From these data we conclude that the marginal DC population has a high turnover, in contrast to the IDC population. Taken together, the present results indicate that marginal DC and IDC represent two essentially distinct populations of DC in the mouse spleen. They differ not only in location, but also in phenotype, phagocytic ability, and turnover.

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 · 10.4049/jimmunol.160.5.2166

Cites

39 of 39 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

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 39 references

Cited by

See all 256

Metadata

Authors
Leenen, P. J. M., Radošević, K., Voerman, J. S. A., Salomon, B., van Rooijen, N., Klatzmann, D., & van Ewijk, W.
Venue
The Journal of Immunology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1998-03-01
Volume
160
Issue
5
Pages
2166-2173
ISSN
  • 0022-1767 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-6606
DOI
10.4049/jimmunol.160.5.2166
OpenAlex
W2112730454
Cited by
256
References
39
FWCI
7.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Heterogeneity of Mouse Spleen Dendritic Cells: In Vivo Phagocytic Activity, Expression of Macrophage Markers, and Subpopulation Turnover. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4049/jimmunol.160.5.2166
The paper
Leenen, P. J. M., Radošević, K., Voerman, J. S. A., Salomon, B., van Rooijen, N., Klatzmann, D., & van Ewijk, W. (1998). Heterogeneity of Mouse Spleen Dendritic Cells: In Vivo Phagocytic Activity, Expression of Macrophage Markers, and Subpopulation Turnover. The Journal of Immunology. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.160.5.2166

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.