Immunochemical Analysis of the Electronegative LDL Subfraction Shows That Abnormal N-terminal Apolipoprotein B Conformation Is Involved in Increased Binding to Proteoglycans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronegative LDL (LDL(-)) is a minor subfraction of modified LDL present in plasma. Among its atherogenic characteristics, low affinity to the LDL receptor and high binding to arterial proteoglycans (PGs) could be related to abnormalities in the conformation of its main protein, apolipoprotein B-100 (apoB-100). In the current study, we have performed an immunochemical analysis using monoclonal antibody (mAb) probes to analyze the conformation of apoB-100 in LDL(-). The study, performed with 28 anti-apoB-100 mAbs, showed that major differences of apoB-100 immunoreactivity between native LDL and LDL(-) concentrate in both terminal extremes. The mAbs Bsol 10, Bsol 14 (which recognize the amino-terminal region), Bsol 2, and Bsol 7 (carboxyl-terminal region) showed increased immunoreactivity in LDL(-), suggesting that both terminal extremes are more accessible in LDL(-) than in native LDL. The analysis of in vitro-modified LDLs, including LDL lipolyzed with sphingomyelinase (SMase-LDL) or phospholipase A(2) (PLA(2)-LDL) and oxidized LDL (oxLDL), suggested that increased amino-terminal immunoreactivity was related to altered conformation due to aggregation. This was confirmed when the aggregated subfractions of LDL(-) (agLDL(-)) and oxLDL (ag-oxLDL) were isolated and analyzed. Thus, Bsol 10 and Bsol 14 immunoreactivity was high in SMase-LDL, ag-oxLDL, and agLDL(-). The altered amino-terminal apoB-100 conformation was involved in the increased PG binding affinity of agLDL(-) because Bsol 10 and Bsol 14 blocked its high PG-binding. These observations suggest that an abnormal conformation of the amino-terminal region of apoB-100 is responsible for the increased PG binding affinity of agLDL(-).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".