Isolation of a Kentucky Blue Grass Pollen Allergen Using a Murine Monoclonal Antibody Immunosorbent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".