Antibody Responses of Pigs to Defined E <sup>rns</sup> Fragments after Infection with Classical Swine Fever Virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antibody responses of pigs to defined Erns fragments, after classical swine fever virus (CSFV) infection, were studied by using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Selection of various E(rns) fragments was based on an immunodominant Erns region encompassing three overlapping antigenic regions, amino acids 65 to 145 (Erns(aa)65-145) (AR1), 84 to 160 (Erns(aa)84-160) (AR2), and 109 to 220 (Erns(aa)109-220) (AR3), identified earlier by our group (M. Lin, E. Trottier, J. Pasick, and M. Sabara, J. Biochem., in press). Defined Erns fragments, including AR1, AR2, AR3, Erns(aa)65-160 (AR12), Erns(aa)84-220 (AR23), Erns(aa)65-220 (AR123), Erns(aa)109-145 (the consensus region defined by the three overlapping regions), and Erns(aa)109-160 (a fragment 15 amino acids larger than the consensus region), were expressed in Escherichia coli, purified by nickel chelate affinity chromatography, and used to measure antibody responses in 20 sera serially collected from pigs experimentally infected with CSFV. Based on the optimum cutoffs determined by receiver operating characteristic analysis after testing 238 negative field sera from Canadian sources, all the Erns fragments were capable of distinguishing positive from negative antibody responses with sensitivities ranging between 75 and 90% and specificities ranging between 83.2 and 100%. Detection of antibody responses to refolded Erns(aa)109-145 and Erns(aa)109-160 by ELISA (this study) but not by Western blots (Lin et al., in press) indicated that the epitopes within the consensus region are conformational. When cutoff values were raised to give a specificity of 100%, four Erns fragments (AR2, AR23, Erns(aa)109-145, and Erns(aa)109-160) offered much higher sensitivities (75 to 90%) than those obtained with other fragments (20 to 65%). Erns(aa)109-145 and Erns(aa)109-160 were capable of detecting antibody responses in infected pigs as early as 7 days postinfection. Demonstration of antibody responses to either one of the four fragments can thus be an alternative to use of the full-length protein in ELISA for serological diagnosis of CSFV infection. An advantage of such a test would be its utilization for serological survey in a classical swine fever-free country (e.g., Canada) in biocontainment level 2 laboratories.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".