MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089167764 · doi:10.1159/000234033

Isolation of a Kentucky Blue Grass Pollen Allergen Using a Murine Monoclonal Antibody Immunosorbent

2009· article· en· W2089167764 on OpenAlexaff
A.K.M. Ekramoddoullah, F.T. Kisil, A.H. Sehon

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Archives of Allergy and Applied Immunology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsMonoclonal antibodyAntigenAllergenChemistryMolecular biologySepharoseAntibodyBiologyImmunologyAllergyBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have previously reported the production of murine monoclonal antibodies to the retentate fraction of Kentucky Blue Grass pollen (KBG-R). In the present study, one of these monoclonal antibodies (Mab 27) was used in a combination of methods employing Western and immunoblot analysis to establish its reactivity to various antigenic components present in KBG-R. Thus, Mab 27 reacted predominantly with an antigen having a MW of 30 kD and to a lesser extent with other antigenic components with MW of 35 and 17 kD. Fractions of KBG-R obtained by preparative isoelectrofocusing, revealed on analysis by ELISA, that Mab 27 reacted with several components differing in charge. From these observations it was concluded that KBG-R contained a group of related antigens detectable with Mab 27 and differing in size and charge. A reverse immunosorbent, prepared by coupling Mab 27 to CNBr-activated Sepharose 4B, was used to absorb KBG-R. Bound material was recovered by acid elution and designated as Ag 27. SDS-PAGE analysis revealed that Ag 27 consisted of at least two components with molecular weights of 30 and 17 kD. Analysis by RAST using sera from humans allergic to KBG indicated that Ag 27 was highly allergenic.

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 score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Archives of Allergy and Applied ImmunologySame topicAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFrench-language works237,207