Immunologic analysis of monoclonal and immunoglobulin E antibody epitopes on natural and recombinant Amb a 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Amb a 1 is the major allergen from ragweed pollen and more than 90% of ragweed-allergic patients react with this protein. Although Amb a 1 was cloned and sequenced in 1991, little is known of the specificity of anti-Amb a 1 antibodies or of the immunologic properties of the recombinant allergen. OBJECTIVE: To compare binding of monoclonal antibodies (mAb) and IgE antibodies to purified natural Amb a 1 (nAmb a 1) and recombinant Amb a 1 (rAmb a 1). METHODS: Binding of a panel of anti-Amb a 1 mAb and IgE antibodies to nAmb a 1 or rAmb a 1 was compared by immunoblotting. Chimeric ELISA was used to measure specific IgE to these allergens using 89 ragweed-allergic sera from Austria, Italy, Canada and the United States. RESULTS: The 8 mAb bound to a 38 kDa Amb a 1 band in ragweed pollen extract and a subset of 5 mAb also bound to the 26 kDa chain of nAmb a 1. A two-site ELISA was developed using a mAb pair, which was approximately 10-fold more sensitive to rAmb a 1. There was a significant correlation between IgE antibody binding to nAmb a 1 and rAmb a 1 (n=89, r=0.79, P<0.001). A subset of approximately 40% of patients showed greater reactivity to nAmb a 1 than to rAmb a 1. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that there is less reactivity of human IgE to rAmb a 1 compared with nAmb a 1. The development of more sensitive, quantitative ELISA for Amb a 1 will require the production of new mAb especially directed against nAmb a 1.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".