The C4A and C4B Isotypic Forms of Human Complement Fragment C4b Have the Same Intrinsic Affinity for Complement Receptor 1 (CR1/CD35)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several previous reports concluded that the C4b fragment of human C4A (C4Ab) binds with higher affinity to CR1 than does C4Bb. Because the isotypic residues, (1101)PCPVLD and (1101)LSPVIH in C4A and C4B, respectively, are located within the C4d region, one may have expected a direct binding contribution of C4d to the interaction with CR1. However, using surface plasmon resonance as our analytical tool, with soluble rCR1 immobilized on the biosensor chip, we failed to detect significant binding of C4d of either isotype. By contrast, binding of C4c was readily detectable. C4A and C4B, purified from plasma lacking one of the isotypes, were Cs converted to C4Ab and C4Bb. Spontaneously formed disulfide-linked dimers were separated from monomers and higher oligomers by sequential chromatographic steps. The binding sensorgrams of C4Ab and C4Bb monomers as analytes reached steady state plateaus, and these equilibrium data yielded essentially superimposable saturation curves that were well fit by a one-site binding model. Although a two-site model was required to fit the equilibrium-binding data for the dimeric forms of C4b, once again there was little difference in the K(D) values obtained for each isotype. Independent verification of our surface plasmon resonance studies came from ELISA-based inhibition experiments in which monomers of C4Ab and C4Bb were equipotent in inhibiting the binding of soluble CR1 to plate-bound C4b. Although divergent from previous reports, our results are consistent with recent C4Ad structural data that raised serious doubts about there being a conformational basis for the previously reported isotypic differences in the C4b-CR1 interaction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".