Quantitative Study of the Interaction of Salivary Acidic Proline-Rich Proteins with Hydroxyapatite
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using specific antisera to the proline-rich proteins A and C, a quantitative assay has been developed for human acidic proline-rich proteins. By adding varying amounts of hydroxyapatite to a given volume of saliva, the adsorption of acidic proline-rich proteins and total protein to hydroxyapatite has been determined for stimulated and unstimulated parotid and submandibular saliva. The maximum amount of acidic proline-rich proteins adsorbed (ADS<sub>max</sub>) varied from 85 to 97% of the total acidic proline-rich proteins present in unadsorbed saliva. ADS<sub>max</sub> for total protein varied from 41 to 79%. The amount of hydroxyapatite needed for half maximal adsorption (HA<sub>50</sub>) was consistently smaller for acidic proline-rich proteins than for total protein and for the secretions from any gland, HA<sub>50</sub> was consistently smaller for unstimulated than stimulated saliva. HA<sub>50</sub> values from one individual were consistently smaller than the corresponding HA<sub>50</sub> values from a second individual. The mean concentration of acidic proline-rich proteins in unadsorbed saliva was 50 ± 26 mg/l00 ml and the mean contribution of acidic proline-rich proteins to hydroxyapatite-adsorbed proteins was 42% ± SD 23 of total adsorbed proteins. On the basis of equilibrium dialysis experiments with purified protein A and C in buffers with pH and ionic strength similar to salivary secretions, it was estimated that the concentration of calcium bound to acidic proline-rich proteins varied from 8 μM in unstimulated submandibular saliva to 41 μM in stimulated submandibular saliva. The concentration of calcium bound to acidic proline-rich proteins therefore apparently depends on the type of salivary secretion.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it