A SENSITIVE IN SITU ELISA FOR QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS OF CYTOKINES AND ANTIBODIES SECRETED BY CULTURE LYMPHOCYTES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cytokines are usually measured using ELISA and ELISPOT. We have developed an in situ ELISA by combining the advantages of the highly sensitive ELISPOT and the quantitative conventional ELISA techniques to measure cytokines and antibodies secreted by culture lymphocytes. In this assay, lymphocytes were cultured on ELISA plates pre-coated with either a special antigen or mAbs against IL-4, IFN-gamma. The caprtured lymphokines or immunoglobulins were subsequently measured by conventional ELISA procedures. As a comparison, a conventional ELISA was carried out in parallel. The in situ ELISA measured a 5-fold increase in antigen-stimulated IL-4 and IFN-gamma, compared to the conventional ELISA. It also rquired 10,000 times fewer lymphocytes to produce a detectable level of antigen-specific antibodies than the conventional ELISA. We conclude that the in situ ELISA is much more sensitive than a conventional ELISA and less costly and easier to perform than ELISPOT, providing a useful tool to quantitatively measure cell-secreted molecules.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".