MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157020792 · doi:10.1186/1743-422x-8-309

Characterization of a branched lipopeptide candidate vaccine against influenza A/Puerto Rico 8/34 which is recognized by human B and T-cell immune responses

2011· article· en· W2157020792 on OpenAlexaff
Liz Samayoa, Francisco Díaz‐Mitoma, Ali Azizi

Bibliographic record

VenueVirology Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsSudbury Regional HospitalUniversity of OttawaChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpitopeImmunogenicityImmunogenBiologyLipid-anchored proteinLipopeptideVirologyAntigenicityHemagglutinin (influenza)Immune systemAntibodyComputational biologyBiochemistryImmunologyVirusMonoclonal antibodyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of synthetic peptides as immunogens represents an exciting alternative to traditional vaccines. However, to date most of these synthetic peptides are not highly immunogenic. The lack of immunogenicity might be addressed by conjugation between T or B cell epitopes with universal or immunodominant T-helper epitopes. The construction of lipidated peptides, branched peptides, or designs combining both of these elements might enhance the immunogenicity, as they might target Toll-Like Receptors and/or mimic the 3-dimensional structure of epitopes within the native protein. Herein, a recognized peptide immunogen based on the hemagglutinin protein of A/Puerto Rico/8/34 was chosen as a backbone and modified to evaluate if the construction of branched peptides, lipidation, the addition of cysteine residues, or mutations could indeed alter epitope reactivity. Screening the different designs with various antibody binding and cellular assays revealed that combining a branched design with the addition of lipid moieties greatly enhanced the immunoreactivity.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVirology JournalSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207