A High Resolution Method to Monitor Phosphorylation-dependent Activation of IRF3
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The IRF3 transcription factor is critical for the first line of defense against pathogens mainly through interferon β and antiviral gene expression. A detailed analysis of IRF3 activation is essential to understand how pathogens induce or evade the innate antiviral response. Distinct activated forms of IRF3 can be distinguished based on their phosphorylation and monomer vs dimer status. In vivo discrimination between the different activated species of IRF3 can be achieved through the separation of IRF3 phosphorylated forms based on their mobility shifts on SDS-PAGE. Additionally, the levels of IRF3 monomer and dimer can be monitored using non-denaturing electrophoresis. Here, we detail a procedure to reach the highest resolution to gain the most information regarding IRF3 activation status. This is achieved through the combination of a high resolution SDS-PAGE and a native-PAGE coupled to immunoblots using multiple total and phosphospecific antibodies. This experimental strategy constitutes an affordable and sensitive approach to acquire all the necessary information for a complete analysis of the phosphorylation-mediated activation of IRF3.
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 | 0.001 | 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".