MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023241321 · doi:10.1159/000236569

Purification and Identification of Polyclonal IgE Antibodies from Ragweed-Sensitized Dog Sera

2009· article· en· W2023241321 on OpenAlexaff
Zhikang Peng, Gilbert Arthur, Danuta Kierek‐Jaszczuk, Elizabeth Thomas, A.H. Sehon, Edward S. Rector, Estelle R. Simons, Allan B. Becker

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Archives of Allergy and Immunology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunoglobulin EPolyclonal antibodiesWestern blotMolecular massRagweedAntibodyChemistryImmunologyMolecular biologySepharoseBiologyAllergyBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have purified and characterized polyclonal dog IgE. Serum IgE was precipitated by (NH4)2SO4 and then purified by two different procedures. Ion exchange on DEAE-Sephacel, followed by HPLC using Tonen hydroxylapatite and then Protein G-Sepharose, produced a highly purified IgE fraction (No. 1) free of IgG, IgA and IgM as measured by ELISA, but recovery of IgE as measured by passive cutaneous anaphylaxis was low. Gel filtration on Sephacryl S-300, Con A-Sepharose and Protein G-Sepharose recovered 18% of initial IgE, 0.02% IgG, 0.4% IgM and 0.3% IgA. This IgE fraction (No. 2) was used to induce antibody production in rabbits. Western blot analysis was then performed for dog IgE fractions No. 1 and 2. Using the rabbit anti-dog IgE, a prominent IgE band with an apparent molecular mass of 226 kD was identified in fractions No. 1 and 2 subjected to nonreducing SDS-PAGE. This band also reacted with anti-human IgE, but not with anti-dog IgG or anti-dog IgA. Under reducing conditions the approximate molecular mass for the IgE & chain, estimated by Western blot using rabbit anti-dog IgE, was 73 kD, providing a molecular mass of 196 kD for dog IgE.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

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 head0.246
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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