MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034527207 · doi:10.1159/000233993

Partial Separation and Functional Characterization of Guinea Pig Basophil-Stimulating Factor

2009· article· en· W2034527207 on OpenAlexaff
Judah A. Denburg, Maureen Davison, John Bienenstock

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Archives of Allergy and Applied Immunology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicAdvanced Drug Delivery Systems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsBasophilImmunologyGuinea pigBiologyMedicineAntibodyInternal medicineImmunoglobulin E

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have previously described T lymphocyte dependent guinea pig basophil growth from bone marrow precursors in vitro. In the current studies, basophil-stimulating factor (BSF) present in mitogen-stimulated splenic conditioned medium (CM) has been functionally characterized, utilizing an assay for BSF on nonadherent bone marrow target cells. BSF was found to be heat stable, nondialyzable, and inactivated by proteases. Monosaccharides known to inhibit guinea pig lymphokines yielded a unique profile of inhibition of BSF activity and nonidentity of BSF with guinea pig migration inhibition factor, interleukins 1 or 2, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating activity, from which BSF could be separated after gel filtration. BSF-containing CM also had no detectable interleukin-3 activity as measured in a murine assay. An inverse relation was found between interleukin 2 and BSF production by peritoneal exudate T cells (PEL) stimulated with antigen. Fractionation of serum-containing and serum-free CM demonstrated a molecular size for BSF of 50,000-65,000 daltons. Guinea pig BSF is a distinct T cell dependent lymphokine with an active protein moiety which may interact with target bone marrow cells through a cell surface carbohydrate receptor.

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 score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Archives of Allergy and Applied ImmunologySame topicAdvanced Drug Delivery SystemsFrench-language works237,207