Comparison of trichloroacetic acid with other protein-precipitating agents in enriching abnormal prion protein for Western blot analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detection of the abnormal or the pathogenic form of prion protein (PrP(Sc)) by Western blot (WB) is challenging, especially, for samples derived from cell cultures that contain low levels of PrP(Sc). A variety of PrP(Sc) concentration methods have been reported with various PrP(Sc) recovery efficiencies. Ultracentrifugation is one of the methods used frequently to enrich the pathogenic form of PrP(Sc) prior to WB analyses. The resulting PrP(Sc) pellet is extremely insoluble and often requires sonication to be dissolved, potentially generating aerosols. We modified the common protein-precipitating protocol using trichloroacetic acid to concentrate PrP(Sc) by slow-speed centrifugation, followed by solubilization of the pellets with 6 mol/L urea prior to sodium dodecyl sulphate -- polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and WB analyses. Comparative studies suggest this simple trichloroacetic acid protocol was more effective in enriching PrP(Sc) presented in cell cultures and brain homogenates than other reported protein-precipitating methods. Furthermore, incorporation of the urea treatment step to dissolve the precipitated PrP(Sc) pellets helped to reduce the infectivity of PrP(Sc).
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".