MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7064789729

Characterization of CFF in the sera of plasmodium-infected mice

2011· dissertation· en· W7064789729 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Plasma Interactions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsPlasmodium chabaudiComplement systemAntibodySize-exclusion chromatographyWhey protein
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to further characterize the inhibitory serum protein crisis form factor, or CFF, and identify candidate proteins responsible for CFF activity. Four models for serum CFF induction were tested: C57BL/6 mice infected with P. chabaudi adami AS, C57BL/6 mice inoculated with BCG + LPS, and BALB/c mice infected with P. chabaudi adami DS or DK. C57BL/6 mice infected with P. chabaudi adami AS produced sera with the most pronounced level of inhibitory activity and were used for CFF analysis. Heat inactivation did not affect CFF activity, indicating the observed effect was not due to complement proteins, function was lost after heating serum to 100°C. Gel filtration determined that CFF may be in the range of 20 kDa – 80 kDa. Serum depletion by IgY retained CFF activity in the low abundance protein fraction (LAP), which was analyzed by MALDI and LC-QToF mass spectrometry and compared to the LAP from naïve mice. A total of 68 proteins were identified as either up-regulated or unique to the CFF serum, and qualitative analysis revealed one potential CFF candidate: neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin. In conclusion, we have established a model for inducing serum CFF, characterized some of its physical properties, and through proteomic analysis identified a potential CFF candidate.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicLaser-Plasma Interactions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207