A new recombinant mosquito salivary allergen, rAed a 2: allergenicity, clinical relevance, and cross‐reactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mosquito salivary proteins cause allergic reactions in humans. The allergenicity, clinical relevance, and species cross-reactivity of a new 37-kDa recombinant mosquito (Aedes aegypti) salivary allergen, rAed a 2, were evaluated. METHODS: rAed a 2 was expressed using a baculovirus/insect cell system and purified. Its allergenicity was examined using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), ELISA inhibition tests, immunoblots, and skin tests. Epicutaneous tests with the allergen, mosquito whole body extracts, and mosquito bite tests were performed on 48 volunteers. Serum rAed a 2-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) was measured in individuals with positive mosquito saliva-specific IgE and negative controls. RESULTS: Both immunoblots and ELISAs demonstrated that rAed a 2 bound to the IgE of mosquito-allergic individuals. The binding could be inhibited by the addition of a natural mosquito preparation. Furthermore, rAed a 2 induced immediate and delayed skin reactions. Ten per cent of 31 participants with a positive mosquito bite test had positive skin reactions to rAed a 2, compared with 32% for mosquito whole body extract. None of the participants with a negative bite test showed positive reactions to either of the two extracts. Forty-three per cent of individuals with positive saliva-IgE had positive rAed a 2-IgE. rAed a 2 was a species-shared allergen, being present in the saliva of the 11 species studied. CONCLUSIONS: rAed a 2 has identical antigenicity and biologic activity to its native form. It can be used in the diagnosis of mosquito allergy, and is an important species-shared antigen.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".