Expression of Lewis<sup>b</sup>blood group antigen in<i>Helicobacter pylori</i>does not interfere with bacterial adhesion property
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The finding that some Helicobacter pylori strains express Lewis b (Le b ) blood group antigen casts a doubt on the role of Le b of human gastric epithelium being a receptor for H. pylori.The aim of this study was to determine if expression of Le b in H. pylori interferes with bacterial adhesion property.METHODS: Bacterial adhesion to immobilized Le b on microtitre plate was performed in 63 H. pylori strains obtained from Singapore using in vitro adherence assay.Expression of Lewis blood group antigens was determined by ELISA assay.RESULTS: Among 63 H. pylori strains, 28 expressed Le b antigen.In vitro adhesion assay showed that 78.6 % (22/ 28) of Le b -positive and 74.3 % (26/35) of Le b -negative H. pylori isolates were positive for adhesion to immobilized Le b coated on microtitre plate (P=0.772).In addition, blocking of H. pylori Le b by prior incubation with anti-Le b monoclonal antibody did not alter the binding of the bacteria to solidphase coated Le b .CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that expression of Le b in H. pylori does not interfere with the bacterial adhesion property.This result supports the notion that Le b present on human gastric epithelial cells is capable of being a receptor for H. pylori.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".