Altered rPrP substrate structures and their influence on real-time quaking induced conversion reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ). Multi-centre trials have demonstrated that RT-QuIC is a suitably reliable and robust technique for clinical practice; however, in the absence of a commercial supplier of rPrP as a substrate for RT-QuIC, laboratories have been required to independently generate this key component of the assay. No harmonized method for producing the protein has been agreed upon, in part due to the variety of substrates that have been applied in RT-QuIC. METHODS: This study examines the effects of two different rPrP refolding protocols on the production, QuIC performance, and structure characteristics of two constructs of rPrP commonly used in QuIC: full length hamster and a sheep-hamster chimeric rPrP. RESULTS: Under the described conditions, the best performing substrate was the chimeric sheep-hamster rPrP produced by shorter guanidine-HCl exposure and faster gradient elution. CONCLUSIONS: The observation that different rPrP production protocols influence QuIC performance indicates that caution should be exercised when comparing inter-laboratory QuIC results.
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) | 0.000 | 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".