Effect of structural stability on endolysosomal degradation and T-cell reactivity of major shrimp allergen tropomyosin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Tropomyosins are highly conserved proteins, an attribute that forms the molecular basis for their IgE antibody cross-reactivity. Despite structural similarities, their allergenicity varies greatly between ingested and inhaled invertebrate sources. In this study, we investigated the relationship between the structural stability of different tropomyosins, their endolysosomal degradation patterns and T-cell reactivity. Methods We investigated the differences between four tropomyosins - the major shrimp allergen Pen m 1 and the minor allergens Der p 10 (dust mite), Bla g 7 (cockroach) and Ani s 3 (fish parasite) - in terms of IgE binding, structural stability, endolysosomal degradation and subsequent peptide generation, and T-cell cross-reactivity in a BALB/c murine model. Results Despite their conserved primary structure and consequent IgE co-reactivity, the invertebrate tropomyosins displayed different protein stabilities. Pen m 1 and Ani s 3, but not Der p 10 and Bla g 7 elicited differential melting temperatures that were pH-dependent. Endolysosomal experiments demonstrated differential degradation, as a function of stability, generating different peptide repertoires. Pen m 1 T-cell clones, with specificity for sequences highly conserved in all four tropomyosins, did not proliferate with Der p 10, Bla g 7 and Ani s 3, indicating that these peptides were not naturally produced for other invertebrate tropomyosins. Conclusions Our data suggest that, although invertebrate tropomyosins exhibit a high degree of IgE cross-reactivity due to conserved B-cell epitopes, they do not necessarily share identical cross-reactive T-cell epitopes. This is likely due to differential endolysosomal processing as a function of different structural stabilities.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".