MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974859380 · doi:10.1159/000264382

Immunochemical Relationship between Soluble and Insoluble Lens Proteins

2009· article· en· W1974859380 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnexins and lens biology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrystallinElectrophoresisUreaBiochemistryLens (geology)ChemistryGel electrophoresisStarchChromatographyAntiserumBiologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between soluble and insoluble proteins in the bovine, human and dogfish lens has been studied by immuno-electrophoresis and urea starch gel electrophoresis at pH 3.0. The result from the immuno-electrophoresis experiment indicated that insoluble protein derived from bovine and human lens is composed of α- and β-crystallins while that obtained from dogfish lens contains γ- and β-crystallins. The urea starch gel electrophoretic patterns of α-crystallin and insouble protein in bovine and human lens showed considerable similarity, however, those of dogfish γ-crystallin and dogfish insoluble protein showed significant differences in their mobilities. The cross-reaction between bovine α-crystallin and bovine insoluble suspension was studied by the quantitative complement fixation test, using rabbit antisera to bovine α-crystallin. The results indicated that 5 to 10% of the total insoluble protein has α-crystallin in a form available for the reaction with the antibody. Similar results were observed when dogfish γ-crystalin and dogfish insoluble suspension was studied.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it