Potential Vaccine or Antimicrobial Reagents: Simple Systems for Producing Lambda Display Particles (LDP) and Sheathed Lambda DNA Vaccine Particles (LDNAP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of this study was to explore phage display systems employing bacteriophage lambda (λ) gene fusions to its capsid decoration protein gpD as reagent tools for tackling disease. The biological activity of gpD-fusions was examined by testing for the retained antimicrobial toxicity of cathelicidins or defensins fused to gpD. Our previous finding that only COOH fusions of either cathelicidins or defensins to gpD were toxigenic was expanded to show that only the reduced form of fused defensin antimicrobial polypeptides was found to be toxigenic. Compared in review are gene-fusion lytic display systems (where the fusion-display gene is integrated within the viral genome) with a surrogate system, employed herein, that exogenously provides the fusion-display protein for addition to phage capsid. It is easily possible to produce fully coated lambda display particles (LDP) serving as single epitope vaccines (SEV), or antimicrobials, or to produce partially coated LDP without any complex bacteriophage genetic engineering, making the system available to all. The potential to build vaccine vector phage particles (LDNAP) comprising essentially sheathed DNA vaccines encapsulated within an environmentally protective capsid is described. LDNAP are produced by introducing a cassette into the phage genome either by phage-plasmid recombination or cloning. The cassette carries a high-level eukaryotic expression promoter driving transcription of the vaccine candidate gene and is devoid of plasmid resistance elements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".