MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134065120 · doi:10.1086/368360

Highly Conserved<i>Neisseria meningitidis</i>Inner‐Core Lipopolysaccharide Epitope Confers Protection against Experimental Meningococcal Bacteremia

2003· article· en· W2134065120 on OpenAlexaff
Joyce S. Plested, Shannon L. Harris, J. Claire Wright, Philip A. Coull, Katherine Makepeace, Margaret‐Anne J. Gidney, Jean‐Robert Brisson, James C. Richards, Dan M. Granoff, E. Richard Moxon

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBacterial Infections and Vaccines
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesMedical Research CouncilMinistry of Education, India
KeywordsNeisseria meningitidisEpitopeMonoclonal antibodyLipopolysaccharideMicrobiologyBacteremiaWestern blotNeisseriaceaeMeningococcal diseaseBiologyVirologyAntibodyImmunologyBacteriaAntibioticsBiochemistryGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inner-core lipopolysaccharide (LPS) from Neisseria meningitidis is under investigation as a vaccine for prevention of meningococcal disease caused by N. meningitidis serogroup B (NmB). We investigated the functional activity of murine monoclonal antibody (MAb) B5 that recognizes a highly conserved (galE) LPS epitope. Three patterns of MAb reactivity were observed in N. meningitidis by Western blot, depending on the relative prevalence of sialylated, nonsialylated, and/or truncated LPS glycoforms. Three representative N. meningitidis strains (8047, M986, and 2996) were investigated with MAb B5 in functional assays in vitro and in vivo. MAb B5 completely protected infant rats against bacteremia caused by 8047, partially protected against 2996, and had no protective activity against M986. Thus, an inner-core LPS epitope can be a target for protective immunity, but the affinity of MAb B5 may only be sufficient to mediate protection against NmB strains possessing at least some truncated glycoforms.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations56
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesSame topicBacterial Infections and VaccinesFrench-language works237,207