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 sequence 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 Tropomyosins displayed different melting temperatures, which did not correlate with amino acid sequence similarities. Endolysosomal degradation experiments demonstrated differential proteolytic digestion, as a function of thermal stability, generating different peptide repertoires. Pen m 1 (T m 42°C) and Der p 10 (T m 44°C) elicited similar patterns of endolysosomal degradation, but not Bla g 7 (T m 63°C) or Ani s 3 (T m 33°C). Pen m 1–specific T‐cell clones, with specificity for regions highly conserved in all four tropomyosins, proliferated weakly to Der p 10, but did not proliferate to Bla g 7 and Ani s 3, indicating lack of T‐cell epitope cross‐reactivity. Conclusions Tropomyosin T‐cell cross‐reactivity, unlike IgE cross‐reactivity, is dependent on structural stability rather than amino acid sequence similarity. These findings contribute to our understanding of cross‐sensitization among different invertebrates and design of suitable T‐cell peptide‐based immunotherapies for shrimp and related allergies.
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".