The Susceptibilities of Respiratory Syncytial Virus to Nucleolin Receptor Blocking and Antibody Neutralization are Dependent upon the Method of Virus Purification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) that is propagated in cell culture is purified from cellular contaminants that can confound experimental results. A number of different purification methods have been described, including methods that utilize fast protein liquid chromatography (FPLC) and gradient ultracentrifugation. Thus, the constituents and experimental responses of RSV stocks purified by ultracentrifugation in sucrose and by FPLC were analyzed and compared by infectivity assay, Coomassie stain, Western blot, mass spectrometry, immuno-transmission electron microscopy (TEM), and ImageStream flow cytometry. The FPLC-purified RSV had more albumin contamination, but there was less evidence of host-derived exosomes when compared to ultracentrifugation-purified RSV as detected by Western blot and mass spectrometry for the exosome markers superoxide dismutase [Cu-Zn] (SOD1) and the tetraspanin CD63. Although the purified virus stocks were equally susceptible to nucleolin-receptor blocking by the DNA aptamer AS1411, the FPLC-purified RSV was significantly less susceptible to anti-RSV polyclonal antibody neutralization; there was 69% inhibition (p = 0.02) of the sucrose ultracentrifugation-purified RSV, 38% inhibition (p = 0.03) of the unpurified RSV, but statistically ineffective neutralization in the FPLC-purified RSV (22% inhibition; p = 0.30). The amount of RSV neutralization of the purified RSV stocks was correlated with anti-RSV antibody occupancy on RSV particles observed by immuno-TEM. RSV purified by different methods alters the stock composition and morphological characteristics of virions that can lead to different experimental responses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".