From the Macro to the Micro: Gel Mapping to Differentiate between Sporozoites of Two Immunologically Distinct Strains of Eimeria maxima (Strains M6 and Guelph)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two immunologically distinct strains of E. maxima were examined in this study: the M6 strain and the Guelph strain. The differential expression between the sporozoites of the two strains of E. maxima was determined by image analysis of 100 μg of protein from each strain separated by standard one- and conventional two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. In addition to differences in both molecular weight and the electrophoretic mobility, differences in the intensity of polypeptide bands for example, GS 136.4 and M6 169 were explored. Pooled gels were prepared from each strain. A representative 2D-PAGE gel spanning a non-linear pH range of 3-10 of E. maxima strain M6 consisted of approximately 694 polypeptide spots with about 67 (9.6%) of the polypeptide spots being unique relative to the other strain. E. maxima strain GS had about 696 discernable polypeptide spots with 69 spots (9.9%) that differed from those of the M6 strain. In-depth characterization of the variable polypeptide spots; unique polypeptide spots (absence or presence) and shared polypeptide spots with modifications may lead to novel vaccine target in the form of multi-component, multi-stage, multi-immunovariant strains, multi-species subunit vaccine, and diagnostic probe for E. maxima.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".