Expression, purification, characterization and clinical relevance of rAed a 1—a 68-kDa recombinant mosquito Aedes aegypti salivary allergen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate diagnosis of mosquito allergy has been precluded by the difficulty of obtaining salivary allergens. In this study, we expressed, purified, characterized and investigated the clinical relevance of a recombinant Aedes aegypti salivary allergen, rAed a 1. Two cDNA segments were ligated together to form the full-length Aed a 1 gene. rAed a 1 was expressed using a baculovirus/insect cell system, and purified using a combination of anion-exchange and gel-filtration chromatography. The purified rAed a 1 bound to human IgE, as detected by ELISA, ELISA inhibition tests and immunoblot analyses. Epicutaneous tests with rAed a 1 and a commercial whole-body AE: aegypti extract, and AE: aegypti bite tests were performed in 48 subjects. Nine of 31 (29%) of the subjects with positive immediate bite tests also had a positive rAed a 1 immediate skin reaction and 32% had an positive immediate test to the commercial extract. Six of 33 (18%) of the subjects with positive delayed bite tests also had a positive rAed a 1 delayed skin reaction and 6% had a positive delayed test to the commercial extract. Furthermore, rAed a 1-induced flare sizes significantly correlated with mosquito bite-induced flare sizes. None of the subjects with negative bite tests had a positive skin test to rAed a 1 or to commercial extract. We conclude that the rAed a 1 has identical antigenicity and biological activity to native Aed a 1, can be used in the in vitro and in vivo diagnosis of mosquito allergy, and is more sensitive than mosquito whole-body extract for detecting delayed skin reactions.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".