MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2263752884 · doi:10.1139/cjm-2015-0762

Immune responses to <i>Mycoplasma bovis</i> proteins formulated with different adjuvants

2016· article· en· W2263752884 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Tracy Prysliak, José Perez‐Casal

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Microbiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsAdjuvantImmune systemBiologyMicrobiologyHumoral immunityInnate immune systemImmunologyVaccinationVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most vaccines for protection against Mycoplasma bovis disease are made of bacterins, and they offer varying degrees of protection. Our focus is on the development of a subunit-based protective vaccine, and to that end, we have identified 10 novel vaccine candidates. After formulation of these candidates with TriAdj, an experimental tri-component novel vaccine adjuvant developed at VIDO-InterVac, we measured humoral and cell-mediated immune responses in vaccinated animals. In addition, we compared the immune responses after formulation with TriAdj with the responses measured in animals vaccinated with a mix of a commercial adjuvant (Emulsigen™) and 2 of the components of the TriAdj, namely polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) and the cationic innate defense regulator (IDR) peptide 1002 (VQRWLIVWRIRK). In this latter trial, we detected significant IgG1 humoral immune responses to 8 out of 10 M. bovis proteins, and IgG2 responses to 7 out of 10 proteins. Thus, we concluded that the commercial adjuvant formulated with poly I:C and the IDR peptide 1002 is the best formulation for the experimental vaccine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MicrobiologySame topicMicrobial infections and disease researchFrench-language works237,207