Inhibition of Anaphylactic Histamine Release by Forssman Antiserum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanism was studied of the inhibitory effect of IgG Forssman antibody on anaphylactic sensitization in the guinea pig lung. Two possibilities were considered to explain the inhibitory effect: either the Forssman antibody-antigen interaction occurred on the mast cell, allowing the F(ab′)2 portion to interfere with the Fc receptor(s) for anaphylactic antibody; or the interaction took place adjacent to the mast cell allowing the Fc portion to occupy the receptors for anaphylactic antibody. These studies were made possible in part by developing a method for preparing mast cell suspensions from guinea pig lung. The mast cells were viable but released histamine only on treatment with compound 48/80 and not with anaphylatoxin, soluble immune complexes or with active or passive anaphylactic sensitization. Mast cells incubated with Forssman antibody and complement showed no evidence of injury as judged by electron microscopy, suggesting that they did not contain Forssman antigen. The absence of Forssman antigen from mast cells was substantiated further by studies of mixed agglutination and fluorescence microscopy. Also, pepsin digestion of Forssman antibody resulted in a loss of the ability to inhibit the histamine-releasing activity of soluble immune complexes, indicating that the F(ab′)2 portion alone was not sufficient to sustain the inhibitory process. It was concluded that the inhibitory effect of IgG Forssman antibody was due to union with interstitial Forssman antigen adjacent to mast cells, allowing the Fc portion of the Forssman antibody to irreversibly occupy the mast cell Fc receptor(s) for anaphylactic antibody.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".