MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012723868 · doi:10.1159/000237309

Immunoblot Analysis of IgE and IgG Binding Antigens in Extracts of Mosquitos Aedes vexans, Culex tarsalis and Culiseta inornata

2009· article· en· W2012723868 on OpenAlexaff
Zhikang Peng, Hongbing Li, Estelle R. Simons

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Archives of Allergy and Immunology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunoglobulin EAntigenAedes vexansAntibodyBiologyImmunologyImmunoglobulin GAedes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extracts of one globally distributed mosquito species (Aedes vexans) and two North American species (Culex tarsalis and Culiseta inornata) were prepared from heads and thoraxes. Proteins of the three extracts were separated by 12% SDS-PAGE and transferred to nitrocellulose membranes for immunoblotting. Immunoblotting was completed by sequential incubations of the membranes with a pooled human serum from subjects allergic to mosquito bites, monoclonal antibodies to human IgE or IgG, and goat antimouse IgG conjugate. Twelve to sixteen antigens with molecular masses ranging from 18.5 to 160 kDa were found in each extract. Nine antigens were shared by 3 species and 6 were shared by 2 species. Only 3 were species-unique. Most antigens bound to both IgE and IgG antibodies. IgE and IgG antibodies against A. vexans were studied by immunoblotting using individual serum from subjects with or without skin reactions to A. vexans bites. All 3 subjects with severe skin reactions had strong IgE and IgG antibodies to 32.5, 40, and 50 kDa proteins. The patterns and magnitudes of IgE and IgG antibodies to the antigens varied among individuals. Very faint IgE antibodies to these antigens were found in the 2 subjects with no skin reactions, suggesting that IgE plays a role in the development of mosquito allergy.

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 score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.403

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Archives of Allergy and ImmunologySame topicAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFrench-language works237,207