MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995588256 · doi:10.1080/15321819.2010.543218

COMPETITIVE AND DOUBLE ANTIBODY SANDWICH ELISA FOR THE QUANTIFICATION OF LACTOFERRINS BY USING MONOCLONAL AND CHICKEN EGG YOLK IgY ANTIBODIES

2011· article· en· W1995588256 on OpenAlexaff
Hoon H. Sunwoo, Naiyana Gujral, Mavanur R. Suresh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Immunoassay and Immunochemistry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntibodyYolkMonoclonal antibodyBiotinylationBovine milkImmunoassayChemistryImmunogenBovine serum albuminWestern blotChromatographyMolecular biologyBiologyFood scienceImmunologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two effective competitive and double antibody sandwich ELISA based on monoclonal (MAb) and chicken egg yolk IgY antibodies were developed to determine lactoferrin (LF) content in infant and milk formulas. Leghorn laying hens were immunized with purified bovine and human LFs to produce anti-bovine LF and anti-human LF IgY antibody in the egg yolk. After 5-8 weeks of the immunization, anti-LF IgY was extracted and analyzed by ELISA. Specific IgY antibodies against LFs cross reacted with human and bovine LFs, examined by ELISA and western-blot assay. Such cross-reactivity suggested the presence of common antigenic determinants between human and bovine LFs. An indirect competitive ELISA was preferred to quantify LF in milk and infant formulas, since the range of detection is 3.125-50 μg/mL, which is broader compared to the biotinylated ELISA system (5-50 ng/mL). As per the indirect competitive ELISA system, IgY at a concentration of the 150 μg/mL was incubated with various concentrations of bovine LF ranged from 0.003-100 μg/mL. The immunoassay was used to estimate the total bovine LF content in the milk samples and infant formulas, ranging from 49.28-80.96 μg/mL and 29.92-60.00 μg/mL, respectively.

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)0.001
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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Immunoassay and ImmunochemistrySame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207