You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to dendritic cells and their role in T cell activation. More specifically, the invention relates to the identification and isolation of genes encoding dendritic cell surface proteins required for T cell activation. The invention further relates to the production and use of reagents that inhibit or augment dendritic cell-dependent activation of T cells.
2. Description of Related Art
Dendritic cells (DC) are unique among antigen presenting cells (APC) by virtue of their potent capacity to activate immunologically naive T cells (Steinman, 1991). DC express constitutively, or after maturation, several molecules that mediate physical interaction with and deliver activation signals to responding T cells. These include class I and class II MHC molecules, CD80 (B7-1) and CD86 (B7-2), CD40, CD11a/CD18 (LFA-1), and CD54 (ICAM-1) (Steinman, 1991; Steinman et al., 1995). DC also secrete, upon stimulation, several T cell-stimulatory cytokines, including IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, macrophage-inflammatory protein-1α (MIP-1α) and MIP-1γ(Matsue et al., 1992; Kitajima et al., 1995; Ariiuzumi et al., 1995; Caux et al., 1994; Heufler et al., 1992; Schreiber et al., 1992; Enk et al., 1992; Mohamadzadeh et al., 1996). Both of these properties, adhesion molecule expression and cytokine production are shared by other APC (e.g., activated macrophages and B cells), which are substantially less competent in activating naive T cells.
T cell activation is an important step in the protective immunity against pathogenic microorganisms (e.g., viruses, bacteria, and parasites), foreign proteins, and harmful chemicals in the environment. T cells express receptors on their surface (i.e., T cell receptors) which recognize antigens presented on the surface of antigen-presenting cells. During a normal immune response, binding of these antigens to the T cell receptor initiates intracellular changes leading to T cell activation. DC express several different adhesion (and costimulatory) molecules, which mediate their interaction with T cells. The combinations of receptors (on DC) and counter-receptors (on T cells) that are known to play this role include: a) class I MHC and CD8, b) class II MHC and CD4, c) CD54 (ICAM-1) and CD11a/CD18 (LFA-1), d) ICAM-3 and CD11a/CD18, e) LFA-3 and CD2, f) CD80 (B7-1) and CD28 (and CTLA4), g) CD86 (B7-2) and CD28 (and CTLA4), and h) CD40 and CD40L (Steinman et al., 1995). Importantly, not only does ligation of these molecules promote physical binding between DC and T cells, it also transduces activation signals.
C-type lectins are a family of glycoproteins that exhibit amino acid sequence similarities in their carbohydrate recognition domains (CRD) and that bind to selected carbohydrates in a Ca2+ -dependent manner. C-type lectins have been subdivided into four categories (Vasta et al., 1994; Spiess 1990). The first group comprises type II membrane-integrated proteins, such as asialoglycoprotein receptors, macrophage galactose and N-acetyl glucosamine (GlcNac)-specific lectin, and CD23 (FcεRII). Many members in this group exhibit specificity for galactose/fucose, galactosamine/GalNac, or GlcNac residues. The second group includes cartilage and fibroblast proteoglycan core proteins. The third group includes the so-called “collectins” such as serum mannose-binding proteins, pulmonary surfactant protein SP-A, and conglutinin. The fourth group includes certain adhesion molecules which are known as LEC-CAMs (e.g., Mel-14, GMP-140, and ELAM-1).
C-type lectins are known to function as agglutinins, opsonins, complement activators, and cell-associated recognition molecules (Vasta et al., 1994; Spiess 1990; Kery, 1991). For instance, macrophage mannose receptors serve a scavenger function (Shepherd et al., 1990), as well as mediating the uptake of pathogenic organisms, including Pneumocystis carinii (Ezekowitz et al., 1991) and Candida albicans (Ezekowitz et al., 1990). Serum mannose-binding protein mimics C1q in its capacity to activate complement through the classical pathway. Importantly, genetic mutations in this lectin predispose for severe recurrent infections, diarrhea, and failure to thrive (Reid et al., 1994). Thus, C-type lectins exhibit diverse functions with biological significance.
Importantly, carbohydrate moieties do not necessarily serve as “natural” ligands for C-type lectins. For example, CD23 (FCεRII), which belongs to the C-type lectin family as verified by its binding of Gal-Gal-Nac (Kijimoto-Ochiai et al., 1994) and by its CRD sequence, is now known to recognize IgE in a carbohydrate-independent manner; an enzymatically deglycosylated form of IgE as well as recombinant (non-glycosylated) IgE produced in E. coli both bind to CD23 (Vercelli et al., 1989). Thus, some C-type lectins recognize polypeptide sequences in their natural ligands. Even more extreme is the recent hypothesis that a major biological function of lectins is the recognition of polypeptides, instead of carbohydrates, as suggested by the identification, from a random polypeptide library, of several polypeptide ligands for Con A, a prototypic plant lectin (Oldenburg et al., 1992).
Recently, two C-type lectins have been identified on DC surfaces. First, Jiang et al. cloned the protein recognized by the NLDC-145 mAb, one of the most widely used mAb against murine DC (Jiang et al., 1995). This protein, now termed DEC-205, was found to be a new member of the C-type lectin family, one that contains ten distinct CRD. Second, Sallusto et al. reported that human DC express macrophage mannose receptors (MMR), which also contain multiple CRD (Sallusto et al., 1995). Both receptors have been proposed to mediate endocytosis of glycosylated molecules by DC, based on the observations that: a) polyclonal rabbit antibodies against DEC-205 not only bound to DEC-205 on DC surfaces, but were subsequently internalized; b) these DC activated effectively a T cell line reactive to rabbit IgG; and c) internalization of FITC-dextran by DC was blocked effectively with mannan, a mannose receptor competitor (Jiang et al., 1995; Sallusto et al., 1995). With respect to cell type specificity, DEC-205 is now known to be also expressed, albeit at lower levels, by B cells and epithelial cells in thymus, intestine, and lung (Witmer-Pack et al., 1995; Inaba et al., 1995) and MMR is also expressed even more abundantly by macrophages (Stahl 1992). Thus, there have been no C-type lectins that are expressed in a DC-specific manner.
Since it is known that DC are far more potent than other APC in their capacity to activate immunologically naive T cells, it is probable that DC express a protein or proteins which function to activate T cells and which are not expressed by other APC. Knowledge of the structure of such a protein or proteins would prove quite valuable in many areas. For example, the purified protein(s) could be used to identify its (or their) ligands expressed by T cells. Additionally, antibodies could be raised against the purified protein(s) and used to inhibit DC-mediated T cell activation.