The functional and structural analysis of integrin B|1 by mapping the epitopes of stimulatory mAbs of integrin B|1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In previous studies, a group of monoclonal antibodies were produced against the human $\\beta\\sb1$ subunit and identified as stimulatory antibodies that can up-regulate integrin ligand binding capacity. In this study, epitope mapping of these antibodies was used to identify regions of the $\\beta\\sb1$ subunit involved in this function. To achieve this, a $\\beta\\sb1$ epitope library which was expressed as a fusion protein in an E.coli host strain was generated and screened with a panel of stimulatory antibodies. The epitopes were identified by sequencing the inserts of positive clones to which the antibody reacted. I found that there are two distinct molecular regions influencing up-regulation of $\\beta\\sb1$ integrin mediated attachment. The epitopes of the stimulatory mAbs JB1B, B3B11 and 21C8 are located on the membrane proximal region (648-705aa) of $\\beta\\sb1$ integrin. The epitope of the other stimulatory monoclonal antibody N29 is located on the amino terminal region (1-60aa) of $\\beta\\sb1$ integrin. In the study of functional regulation of $\\beta\\sb3$ integrin, the homologous regions (residue 1-6 and residue 02-690) have been shown to be the sites recognized by stimulatory antibodies to ligand-induced binding sites. This study indicates that there are multiple regulatory regions on the $\\beta\\sb1$ subunit and suggest structural and functional homology between the locations of $\\beta\\sb1$ and $\\beta\\sb3$ regulatory sites. Some functions of integrin are known to be affected by post-translational modification. Through the study of deglycosylation of the $\\beta\\sb1$ native protein, we found that B44, a stimulatory antibody of $\\beta\\sb1$ integrin recognized a carbohydrate epitope or partial carbohydrate epitope. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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".