MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011201201 · doi:10.1159/000231175

Mitogen Stimulation of Rabbit Spleen Cells before and after Complement-Mediated Cell Kill with an Antiserum Directed against the Thymus Antigen RTLA

2009· article· en· W2011201201 on OpenAlexaff
Pang N. Shek, C.‐T. Chou, S. Dubiski, B. Cinader

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Archives of Allergy and Applied Immunology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcanavalin AThymidineSpleenAntigenBiologyPhytohaemagglutininAntibodyMolecular biologyLipopolysaccharideImmunologyLymphocyteIn vitroBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rabbit thymus lymphocyte antigen (RTLA) has been previously characterized as an antigen of rabbit thymus-derived cells (Cell. Immunol. 7: 484–501, 1973). It has now been shown that the antigen may be regarded as a thymus marker in terms of cellular responsiveness to various mitogens. It was found that only RTLA-bearing spleen cells responded to phytohaemagglutinin and concanavalin A with increased thymidine uptake. Only those spleen cells, which remained viable after treatment with RTLA antibody and complement, responded by thymidine incorporation to antibody against A4 light chain marker. The sensitivity of the detection of mitogen effects was improved by removing cells, adhering to or ingesting magnetic core particles, coated with poly-L-lysine. Following such pretreatment, there was a reduction in thymidine uptake by unstimulated spleen cells. This reduction in background thymidine incorporation made it possible to determine target specificity with mitogens of low potency. Using this technique, it became possible to demonstrate that lipopolysaccharide is a mitogen for rabbit B cells, albeit marginally so, and much less effective for rabbit than for murine B cells.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Archives of Allergy and Applied ImmunologySame topicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies ResearchFrench-language works237,207