Preliminary study for the detection of pig specific antibodies against peptides obtained from PRRSV envelope proteins using Dot blot assay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Porcine Respiratory and Reproductive Syndrome Virus (PRRSV) is found worldwide being responsible for one the largest economic losses in the swine industry. Currently, different immunological assays are being used to detect specific anti-PRRSV antibodies, however they have some deficiencies. As an example of this is the ELISA test that usually does not work well with small molecules because it generally absorbs peptides larger than 15-20 residues in length. This study was conducted for the detection of specific antibodies in field pig sera against PRRSV using small synthetic peptides by Dot Blot assay. Those peptides were obtained from the envelope protein GP5 of PRRSV type 1 and type 2. Each sera sample was diluted using a range from 0.000625 to 0.005. The level of concordance between the results obtained by Dot-blot and commercial ELISA for pig categories oscillated from discrete to moderate against peptides. Sows showed higher antibody titers than younger pigs towards all peptides, being more noticeable against GP5 P1. It was demonstrated that Dot-blot assay is a valuable technique for detecting specific antibodies against small synthetic peptides.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".