Method for Studying Immunoglobulin G Binding on Hydrophobic Surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a reactant adsorptive membrane bioreactor separator (or RAMBS) system to examine hydrophobic interaction based binding of human immunoglobulin G (HIgG) on synthetic microporous membranes possessing tunable hydrophobicity. Membrane bound HIgG on being pulsed with papain resulted in Fab being obtained in the flowthrough with Fc remaining bound to the membrane. On the other hand, when membrane bound HIgG was pulsed with pepsin, Fc subfragments were obtained in the flowthrough with F(ab')(2) remaining bound to the membrane. These product profiles suggest that HIgG bound to the membrane through its middle region. Enzyme linked immunoadsorbent assay (ELISA), sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), and mass spectrometric analysis of eluate samples obtained from the RAMBS experiments provided evidence that the binding of HIgG took place primarily through the segment consisting of the hinge and C(H)2 domain of Fc. The experimental approach described in this paper could potentially be more widely applicable for studying protein interactions with membrane and surfaces in general.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".