A reproducible technique for specific labeling of antigens using preformed fluorescent molecular IgG‐F(ab′)<sub>2</sub> complexes from primary antibodies of the same species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immunolabeling two different antigens using the indirect approach with antibodies from the same species is not possible as secondary antibodies can bind to either primary target antibodies. In this study, we describe how preformed complexes of primary and secondary labeled antibodies can be used in such circumstances. In this situation, the first antigen is labeled using the conventional indirect method followed by incubation with the preformed primary-secondary antibody complex against the second antigen. To prevent unbound secondary antibody from binding the indirectly-labeled antibodies, resulting in a false positive, we quenched excess secondary antibody with nonimmune murine serum from the species of the primary antibody. Before the formation of the preformed complex, the optimum dilution of both primary and secondary antibodies was determined. Once these concentrations were established, the concentration of nonimmune murine serum required to quench excess unbound secondary was determined. This step was accomplished by first incubating the sample with an antibody against an antigen known to be localized away from the antigen of interest, followed by the preformed complex. If specific staining was seen, other than that expected from the preformed complex, then the concentration of the serum was deemed insufficient for quenching, and increased accordingly. We demonstrate that this approach is successful in determining the optimum conditions for the preformation of ascites and purified monoclonal primary IgG with fluorescently conjugated F(ab')(2). Double immunolabelling of two focal adhesion antigens and two cytoskeletal proteins, with two murine primary antibodies, are presented as examples of the methodology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".