The Use of Chicken Igy in a Double Antibody Sandwich Elisa for the Quantification of Melittin in Bee Venom and Bee Venom Melittin Content in Cosmetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) - based detection systems: indirect competitive ELISA and biotinylated double antibody sandwich ELISA (DAS-ELISA) were developed to determine the melittin concentration in honeybee (Apis mellifera) venom and the melittin concentration in cosmetics which contain bee venom. The indirect competitive ELISA employed chicken anti-melittin IgY. The biotinylated DAS-ELISA employed anti-melittin monoclonal antibody (MAb) and biotinylated anti-melittin IgY. To produce anti-melittin IgY; Sigma melittin was emulsified with Freund‘s incomplete adjuvant and immunised to Leghorn laying chickens intramuscularly at four different sites (50 μg/mL, 0.25 mL per site) of the breast muscles. After 5 to 8 weeks of the immunisation, anti-melittin IgY was extracted and analysed by ELISA. The anti-melittin IgY antibody produced was highly specific to melittin and did not cross-react with other bee venom proteins, as examined by ELISA and a western-blot assay. Indirect competitive ELISA demonstrated a higher range of melittin detection (2.5 to 80 μg/mL). Double antibody sandwich ELISA using MAb as the capture antibody and biotinylated polyclonal IgY as the detection antibody, provided a lower range of detection (2.5 - 40 ng/mL), which has a 1000 times higher sensitivity than that of indirect competitive ELISA. Therefore, indirect competitive ELISA is a useful tool to measure the concentration of melittin in bee venom as a raw material. Biotinylated DAS-ELISA, on the other hand, is more suitable for nanoscale quantification of melittin in commercial products.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".