Similarity in the Mechanism of Histamine Release Induced by Cationic Protein from Neutrophils and by Complement Dependent Ag-Ab Reaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been shown previously that band 2 protein obtained from the lysosomes of rabbit neutrophils induces specific histamine release from rat peritoneal mast cells [10]. The activation of esterase was shown to be an initial step followed by active state I. This state decays without rendering the cells unresponsive to rechallenge. The establishment of unresponsiveness to band 2 protein in the presence of DNP was attributed to the decay of a second active state. In the present investigations, an attempt has been made to determine whether the same pathway is activated by complement-dependent antigen-antibody reaction. It has been found that the cells made unresponsive to band 2 protein in the presence of DNP also became unresponsive to Ag-Ab-C. Similarly, the cells made unresponsive to Ag-Ab-C by reacting them in the presence of DNP or at 15 °C became unresponsive to band 2 protein. Unlike Ag-Ab-C, band 2 protein itself released histamine at 15 °C. Band 2 protein, but not Ag-Ab-C, activated the cells at 10 °C, so as to release histamine after removal of the stimulus prior to the resus-pension of these cells in Tyrode at 37 °C. The rates of activation of mast cells by these two stimuli differ markedly. These findings are discussed in view of the proposed mechanism of histamine release.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".