MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075147732 · doi:10.1089/hyb.2005.24.231

Epitope Mapping of Monoclonal Antibody 4C8 Recognizing the Protein Huntingtin

2005· article· en· W2075147732 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shuyan Cong, Barry A. Pepers, Raymund A.C. Roos, Gert‐Jan B. van Ommen, Josephine C. Dorsman

Bibliographic record

VenueHybridoma · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Genetics
KeywordsHuntingtinEpitopeMonoclonal antibodyMutantAntibodyBiologyEpitope mappingHuntingtin ProteinMolecular biologyMutationAmino acidMutant proteinVirologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Huntington's disease is a dominantly inherited, devastating neurodegenerative disorder, caused by a polyglutamine expansion (>37) in the N-terminal region of huntingtin, a protein of unknown function. In patients and normal individuals, N-terminal fragments of huntingtin are found, and the N-terminal fragments of mutant huntingtin are cytotoxic. The functions of wild-type huntingtin and the mechanisms underlying the toxic effects of mutant huntingtin are still ill defined. To get more insight into these topics, monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) are indispensable tools. Antibodies raised against the N-terminus are especially important. Among these, the 4C8 mouse MAb has been extensively used in various approaches. In this study, we have mapped the epitope of 4C8 to a 15-amino acid (aa) region spanning from aa 443 to 457 of the human protein, and found that mutation of three consecutive glutamic acids present in this region disrupts the recognition by 4C8. These results allow a more accurate interpretation of the results obtained by usage of the 4C8 antibody and broaden the utility of this 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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.281
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

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHybridomaSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207