11 research outputs found
How does autodialogue work? Miracles of meaning maintenance and circumvention strategies
Challenging Science's Holy Inquisition: Illegitimate Psychological Phenomena and Their Study
'The Hopi in me': The construction of a voice in the dialogical self from a cultural psychological perspective
Contains fulltext :
62869.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access
HIV-1-specific CD8 T cells exhibit limited cross-reactivity during acute infection
Prior work has demonstrated that HIV-1âspecific CD8 T cells can cross-recognize variant epitopes. However, most of these studies were performed in the context of chronic infection, where the presence of viral quasispecies makes it difficult to ascertain the true nature of the original antigenic stimulus. To overcome this limitation, we evaluated the extent of CD8 T cell cross-reactivity in patients with acute HIV-1 clade B infection. In each case, we determined the transmitted founder virus sequence to identify the autologous epitopes restricted by individual HLA class I molecules. Our data show that cross-reactive CD8 T cells are infrequent during the acute phase of HIV-1 infection. Moreover, in the uncommon instances where cross-reactive responses were detected, the variant epitopes were poorly recognized in cytotoxicity assays. Molecular analysis revealed that similar antigenic structures could be cross-recognized by identical CD8 T cell clonotypes mobilized in vivo, yet even subtle differences in a single TCR-accessible peptide residue were sufficient to disrupt variant-specific reactivity. These findings demonstrate that CD8 T cells are highly specific for autologous epitopes during acute HIV-1 infection. Polyvalent vaccines may therefore be required to provide optimal immune cover against this genetically labile pathogen
Do You Know Ragnar Rommetveit? On Dialogue and Silence, Poetry and Pedantry, and Cleverness and Wisdom in Psychology (An Interview with Ragnar Rommetveit)
Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings
We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely high-powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohenâs ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied