CD14 Employs Hydrophilic Regions to “Capture” Lipopolysaccharides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CD14 participates in the host innate inflammatory response to bacterial LPS obtained from Escherichia coli and other Gram-negative bacteria. Evidence from several laboratories suggests that different regions of the amino-terminal portion of the molecule may be involved in LPS binding. In this report a series of single-residue serine replacement and charge reversal mutations were generated to further elucidate the mechanism by which this protein may bind a multitude of different LPS ligands. Single-residue CD14 mutation proteins were examined for their ability to bind LPS obtained from E. coli, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Helicobacter pylori and facilitate the activation of E-selectin from human endothelial cells. In addition, the single-residue CD14 mutation proteins were employed to perform monoclonal epitope-mapping studies with three LPS-blocking Abs that bound tertiary epitopes. Evidence that several different hydrophilic regions of the amino-terminal region of CD14 are involved in LPS binding was obtained. Epitope-mapping studies revealed that these hydrophilic regions are located on one side of the protein surface. These studies suggest that CD14 employs a charged surface in a manor similar to the macrophage scavenger receptor to "capture" LPS ligands and "present" them to other components of the innate host defense system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".