MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592269680 · doi:10.1002/9781119126942.ch29

PURIFICATION OF MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES FROM PLANTS

2017· other· en· W2592269680 on OpenAlexaff
Z̆ivko L. Nikolov, Jeffrey T. Regan, Lynn F. Dickey, Susan L. Woodard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicTransgenic Plants and Applications
Canadian institutionsMedicago (Canada)
FundersUniversity of Kansas
KeywordsMonoclonal antibodyDownstream processingAffinity chromatographyChemistryChromatographyProtein purificationDownstream (manufacturing)Fusion proteinRecombinant DNABiochemistryAntibodyBiologyEngineeringEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter discusses the advantages and constraints of plants as a platform technology, particularly with respect to downstream processing. It shows generic downstream processing steps for plant tissue expressing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). These steps include: the disintegration of tissue/cells to release the target mAb; solids separation and clarification; pretreatment of the clarified extract; product capture and purification by affinity chromatography or other biospecific interactions; and product polishing. In mammalian systems, Protein A affinity chromatography has become the industry-wide workhorse for the capture and purification of mAbs, and as would be expected, the use of Protein A has extended to plant systems. The high cost of Protein A resin for the capture of mAbs and Fc fusion proteins has led to the evaluation of alternative process schemes for the purification of mAbs from both mammalian cell cultures and plant tissue extracts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.007

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTransgenic Plants and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207