comparison of predicted binders in rhipicephalus (boophilus) microplus intestine protein variants bm86 campo grande strain, bm86 and bm95 comparação da previsão de ligação das variantes de proteína de intestino de rhipicephalus (boophilus) microplus bm86 cepa campo grande, bm86 e bm95

Clicks: 166
ID: 145280
2008
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #43 of 49 articles by views in journal of clinical periodontology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
This paper reports the sequence analysis of Bm86 Campo Grande strain comparing it with Bm86 and Bm95 antigens from the preparations TickGardPLUS and GavacTM, respectively. The PCR product was cloned into pMOSBlue and sequenced. The secondary structure prediction tool PSIPRED was used to calculate alpha helices and beta strand contents of the predicted polypeptide. The hydrophobicity profile was calculated using the algorithms from the Hopp and Woods method, in addition to identification of potential MHC class-I binding regions in the antigens. Pair-wise alignment revealed that the similarity between Bm86 Campo Grande strain and Bm86 is 0.2% higher than that between Bm86 Campo Grande strain and Bm95 antigens. The identities were 96.5% and 96.3% respectively. Major suggestive differences in hydrophobicity were predicted among the sequences in two specific regions.
O objetivo deste estudo foi analisar a seqüência de Bm86 cepa Campo Grande comparando-a com os antígenos Bm86 e Bm95 das preparações TickGardPLUS e GavacTM, respectivamente. O produto de PCR foi clonado em PMOSBlue e seqüenciado. Para calcular os conteúdos de alfa-hélice e fita beta do polipeptídio previsto, foi utilizada a ferramenta de prognóstico de estrutura secundária PSIPRED. O perfil de hidrofobicidade foi calculado usando os algoritmos de Hopp e Woods, além da identificação das possíveis regiões de ligação com MHC classe I nos antígenos. O alinhamento "pair-wise" revelou que a similaridade entre Bm86 cepa Campo Grande e Bm86 é 0,2% maior que aquela entre Bm86 cepa Campo Grande e Bm95. As identidades foram de 96,5% e 96,3%, respectivamente. Com relação à hidrofobicidade, os resultados sugerem que a maior diferença entre as seqüências está localizada em duas regiões específicas.
Reference Key
andreotti2008revistacomparison Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Renato Andreotti;Marisela S. Pedroso;Alexandre R. Caetano;Natália F. Martins
Journal journal of clinical periodontology
Year 2008
DOI
10.1590/S1984-29612008000200006
URL
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1984-29612008000200006
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.