Immunological and Biological Properties of Recombinant Lol p 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current forms of allergy diagnosis and therapies are based on the use of natural allergenic extracts. Despite strong evidence that higher therapeutic efficacy may be achieved with purified allergens, the purification of multiple allergic components from extracts is a fastidious and sometimes an impossible task. However, the use of recombinant allergens may be an alternative to overcome this problem. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we compared the immunological properties of recombinant (r) Lol p 1 with those of the natural protein. METHOD: We cloned directly the gene encoding Lol p 1 from genomic DNA of ryegrass pollen. This gene was subcloned into the expression vector pMAL-c and expressed as fusion protein. Subsequently, rLol p 1 was cleaved from maltose-binding protein using factor Xa. Using binding inhibition and proliferative assays, we assessed the immunological properties of the recombinant allergens. The capacity of rLol p 1 to trigger basophil histamine release and to elicit a skin reaction was also assessed and compared to those of its natural counterpart. RESULTS: We found that the Lol p 1 gene has no introns since we amplified this gene directly from genomic DNA. We demonstrated that the binding sites of anti-Lol p 1 monoclonal antibody, specific human IgG and IgE antibody are well conserved on rLol p 1 as no difference in the binding inhibition profile was observed when using either natural or recombinant protein. At the T-cell level, rLol p 1 elicited a T-cell response in mice comparable to that observed with the natural protein. In addition, we demonstrated that the biological characteristics of rLol p 1 were comparable to those of the natural counterpart, in that rLol p 1 elicited a skin wheal reaction and induced basophil histamine release in grass-allergic patients only. CONCLUSION: The data indicate that natural Lol p 1 and rLol p 1 shared identical immunological and biological properties.
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) | 0.000 | 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".