Distinct epitope structures of defensin‐like proteins linked to proline‐rich regions give rise to differences in their allergenic activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Art v 1, Amb a 4, and Par h 1 are allergenic defensin‐polyproline–linked proteins present in mugwort, ragweed, and feverfew pollen, respectively. We aimed to investigate the physicochemical and immunological features underlying the different allergenic capacities of those allergens. Methods Recombinant defensin‐polyproline–linked proteins were expressed in E. coli and physicochemically characterized in detail regarding identity, secondary structure, and aggregation status. Allergenic activity was assessed by mediator releases assay, serum IgE reactivity, and IgE inhibition ELISA using sera of patients from Austria, Canada, and Korea. Endolysosomal protein degradation and T‐cell cross‐reactivity were studied in vitro. Results Despite variations in the proline‐rich region, similar secondary structure elements were observed in the defensin‐like domains. Seventy‐four percent and 52% of the Austrian and Canadian patients reacted to all three allergens, while Korean patients were almost exclusively sensitized to Art v 1. This was reflected by IgE inhibition assays demonstrating high cross‐reactivity for Austrian, medium for Canadian, and low for Korean sera. In a subgroup of patients, IgE reactivity toward structurally altered Amb a 4 and Par h 1 was not changed suggesting involvement of linear epitopes. Immunologically relevant endolysosomal stability of the defensin‐like domain was limited to Art v 1 and no T‐cell cross‐reactivity with Art v 1 25‐36 was observed. Conclusions Despite structural similarity, different IgE‐binding profiles and proteolytic processing impacted the allergenic capacity of defensin‐polyproline–linked molecules. Based on the fact that Amb a 4 demonstrated distinct IgE‐binding epitopes, we suggest inclusion in molecule‐based allergy diagnosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".