MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978404739 · doi:10.1089/153685902760213886

Characterization of a Monoclonal Antibody Specific for a Novel Primate Cell Surface Marker with Distinct Biochemical Properties on Human Erythroleukemia and Myeloid Cell Lines

2002· article· en· W1978404739 on OpenAlexaff
Chew Shun Chang, Grant McFadden

Bibliographic record

VenueHybridoma and Hybridomics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicComplement system in diseases
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCell cultureMonoclonal antibodyBiologyJurkat cellsCluster of differentiationCellMolecular biologyMyeloidAntibodyHaematopoiesisStem cell markerCell biologyT cellStem cellImmunologyBiochemistryGeneticsImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A hybridoma, CSC-1, which secretes monoclonal antibody (MAb) specific for a cell surface molecule on African green monkey kidney cell line, BGMK, was isolated and characterized. The cell surface molecule recognized by CSC-1 is widely expressed on a variety of human cell lines. Among the hematopoietic cell lines examined, the CSC-1 marker seems to be preferentially expressed by lymphoid cell lines (e.g., Raji, CEM-SS, Jurkat, and MOLT-3). Although CSC-1 also recognizes some uncommitted myeloid and erythroleukemia cell lines (e.g., U-937 and K562), the CSC-1 marker expression on these cell lines is subjected to PMA-induced down-regulation. In addition, the PMA-induced cell surface down-regulation of the CSC-1 marker required more than 24 h. Proteolytic analysis shows that the CSC-1 marker can be categorized into proteinase K-resistant and-sensitive phenotypes. Furthermore, the CSC-1 marker exhibits a slow cell surface turnover rate after proteinase K treatment. Our data suggest that the CSC-1 cell surface molecule might be useful as a megakaryocytic or monocytic differentiation marker.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHybridoma and HybridomicsSame topicComplement system in diseasesFrench-language works237,207