Studies on Alternaria Allergens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earlier, it was reported that most of the allergenic activity of Alternariatenuis seemed to reside in the last Sεphadex G-100 fraction (G3, molecular weight ∼ 20,000). These conclusions were based on results obtained by the in vitro techniques of radioallergosorbent tests (RAST) and RAST inhibition. In the present studies, the allergenic activity of A. tenuis fractions was measured in vivo. It was found that fraction G3 was neither capable of inducing reaginic (IgE) antibodies in rats nor eliciting a skin reaction in rats sensitized with reagins against A. tenuis non-dialyzable fraction (MW > 12,000). On the other hand, subtractions G2D3 and G2D4 obtained from the middle fraction of G-100 (G2, MW ∼ 30,000–40,000) followed by ion-exchange chromatography on DEAE-cellulose, showed the greatest allergenic activity in vivo, giving high titered reaginic antibodies in rats. When compared by RAST inhibition, the activities of fractions G2D3 and G2D4 were slightly lower than that of G3. Fraction G3 was immunogenic in rabbits. In immunodiffusion tests, G2D3, G2D4 and G3 appeared to be identical and they were cross-inhibiting in RAST inhibition tests. It was concluded that the sizes and multivalent properties of G2 and G3 antigens exerted a strong influence on their allergenic activities in rats (IgE antibody production) but this factor was of little importance for their antigenic activity in rabbits (precipitin antibody production) and their behaviour in the in vitro tests.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".