Acrylamide Capture of DNA-Bound Complexes: Electrophoretic Purification of Transcription Factors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have developed a rapid nonradioactive electrophoretic technique to analyze proteins within DNA-binding complexes, acrylamide capture of DNA-binding complexes (ACDC), using Acrydite-linked DNA-binding targets. The method is highly sensitive and easily adaptable to virtually any protein-DNA interaction. The utility of this technique is illustrated using recombinant and full-length androgen receptors and associated co-regulatory proteins present within nuclear extracts. In brief proteins were incubated with DNA-binding targets in which one oligonucleotide was synthesized with an Acrydite moiety at the 5' end to allow for covalent linkage to acrylamide. Alternatively, gene promoter regions were amplified with an Acrydite-modified PCR primer to analyze protein-DNA complexes. The DNA-binding reaction was polymerized into an acrylamide matrix within the well of a precast gel. Proteins complexed to the Acrydite DNA are trapped and purified by the electrophoretic migration of unbound proteins. Proteins captured in the Acrydite-DNA can be eluted and identified by Western analysis or 2-D gel electrophoresis. The advantages of this technique are that it is rapid, adaptable, sensitive, unlimited by the size of the DNA or protein complex, and can be used to detect tertiary interactions with co-regulatory factors and unidentified proteins. These features make the ACDC technique a powerful tool for transcription factor research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it