MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991950006 · doi:10.1021/jf0112264

Comparative Studies on Antigenicity and Allergenicity of Native and Denatured Egg White Proteins

2002· article· en· W1991950006 on OpenAlexaff
Yoshinori Mine, Jie Wei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntigenicityOvotransferrinOvalbuminEgg whiteEpitopeAntibodyChemistryImmunoglobulin EAntigenEgg allergyLysozymeBiochemistryMolecular biologyImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The binding activities of IgG and IgE antibodies from egg-allergic patients to physically or chemically treated egg white proteins were examined and compared with those of rabbit anti-egg white IgG antibodies. The sera from eight patients and four rabbit antibodies were used in this study. The binding activities of human IgG antibody to partially denatured ovotransferrin (Tf), ovalbumin (OA), and lysozyme (Lys) forms were increased, whereas carboxymethylation (RCM) and heat treatment caused a dramatic decrease in the antigenicity of Tf and ovomucoid (OVM). Tf and OVM were major immunogenic antigens for the rabbit IgG response. Urea also caused Tf to exhibit greater rabbit IgG binding activity. In contrast, human and rabbit antibodies did not react with ovomucin. Partially denatured Tf and Lys also induced strong IgE binding activities. The allergenicity of Tf, OVM, and Lys was decreased by RCM, whereas OA retained its binding capacity. These results suggested that anti-OA IgE recognizes more sequential epitopes and that anti-OVM and Lys antibodies recognize both conformational and sequential epitopes. Tf and OVM were dominant allergens for the IgE antibodies of anaphylaxis patients, whereas IgE from atopic patients bound more strongly with OA and OVM.

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 score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations146
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207