Modulation of the IgE Antibody Response in Rats to Kentucky Blue Grass Pollen Allergens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The low molecular weight dialyzable fraction (D) prepared from the aqueous extract of Kentucky Blue Grass pollen was shown to suppress the formation of IgE antibodies in rats immunized with the nondialyzable fraction (R). In an attempt to establish the nature of the constituents responsible for this suppression, D was fractionated by gel filtration through Sephadex G-25. The first fraction eluted (DI) elicited skin reactions in rats sensitized with a rat reaginic serum to R and also gave a precipitate with a rabbit antiserum to R. A later fraction (DIII) was devoid of these two properties. To investigate the effects of these fractions on the antibody response, rats received either DI or DIII, administered in saline, prior to their immunization with R in presence of aluminum hydroxide. Pretreatment with DI resulted in a reduction of IgE antibody levels as compared with the IgE antibody response in control animals which had received pretreatment only with saline; however, pretreatment with DI did not affect the anti-R-hemagglutinating titers. In contrast, pretreatment with DIII enhanced both the IgE and the hemagglutinating antibodies. Hence, it is concluded that the composite fraction D contains one group of constituents capable of suppressing and another of enhancing the IgE antibody response.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".