Affinity capillary electrophoresis to evaluate the complex formation between poliovirus and nanobodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was demonstrated that nanobodies with an in vitro neutralizing activity against poliovirus type 1 interact with native virions. Here, the use of capillary electrophoresis was investigated as an alternative technique for the evaluation of the formation of nanobody-poliovirus complexes, and therefore predicting the in vitro neutralizing activity of the nanobodies. The macromolecules are preincubated offline in a specific nanobody-to-virus ratio and analyzed by capillary electrophoresis with UV detection. At low nanobody-to-virus ratios, a clear shift in migration time of the viral peak was observed. A broad peak was obtained, indicating the presence of a heterogeneous population of nanobody-virion complexes, caused by the binding of different numbers of nanobodies to the virus particle. At elevated nanobody-to-virus ratios, a cluster of peaks appeared, showing an additional increase in migration times. It was shown that, at these high molar excesses, aggregates were formed. The developed capillary electrophoresis method can be used as a rapid, qualitative screening for the affinity between poliovirus and nanobodies, based on a clearly visible and measurable shift in migration time. The advantages of this technique include that there is no need for antigen immobilization as in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays or surface plasmon resonance for the use of radiolabeled virus or for the performance of labor- and time-intensive plaque-forming neutralization assays.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".