Monoclonal antibodies assisting refolding of firefly luciferase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reactivation efficiency in the refolding of denatured luciferase in the presence and the absence of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has been studied. Luciferase could be partially reactivated when the protein was denatured in high concentrations of guanidium chloride (GdmCl; >4.5 M) and the refolding was carried out in very low protein concentrations. The refolding yield was, however, significantly lower when it was performed on luciferase that had been denatured with lower concentrations of GdmCl. The efficiency of refolding decreases when the formation of aggregates increases. Three of the five luciferase mAbs tested (4G3, N2E3, S2G10) dramatically increased the yield of reactivation and simultaneously eliminated the formation of aggregates. It is proposed that these mAbs assisted the refolding of luciferase by binding to the exposed hydrophobic surface of the refolding intermediate, thus preventing it from aggregating. The epitopes interacting with these refolding-assisting mAbs are all located in the A-subdomain of the N-terminal region of luciferase. These results have also shed light on the structural features of the intermediate and its interface involved in protein aggregate formation, contributing to the understanding of the protein folding mechanism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".