On how the immune system preferentially interacts with antigen‐specific molecules bound to antigen over unbound molecules, with emphasis on B cell receptor signalling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antigen-specific molecules of the immune system, namely antibodies, the membrane immunoglobulins (mIgs) of B cells and T cell receptors (TcRs), can all signal their interaction with antigen. There are different mechanisms by which this signalling could occur. These mechanisms can be divided into two general categories: allosteric and non-allosteric. In allosteric mechanisms, the monovalent binding of the antigen to the receptor triggers a conformational change at the binding site that is propagated to an invariant part of the receptor, a change recognized by a sensing unit. We argue allosteric mechanisms are implausible. Non-allosteric mechanisms depend on steric effects due to the antigen's size and/or multivalency. We consider two non-allosteric mechanisms by which the mIg of B cells has been envisaged to signal its interaction with antigen: the popular cross-linking model and the dissociation activation model. We argue, on the basis of both experimental observations and physiological considerations, that the dissociation activation model, developed by Reth and his colleagues, is uniquely plausible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".