MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1834676530 · doi:10.3390/s151026236

Protein Adsorption in Microengraving Immunoassays

2015· article· en· W1834676530 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Qing Song

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Biosensing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork University
KeywordsAdsorptionChemistryChromatographyComputational biologyBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microengraving is a novel immunoassay for characterizing multiple protein secretions from single cells. During the immunoassay, characteristic diffusion and kinetic time scales and determine the time for molecular diffusion of proteins secreted from the activated single lymphocytes and subsequent binding onto the glass slide surface respectively. Our results demonstrate that molecular diffusion plays important roles in the early stage of protein adsorption dynamics which shifts to a kinetic controlled mechanism in the later stage. Similar dynamic pathways are observed for protein adsorption with significantly fast rates and rapid shifts in transport mechanisms when is increased a hundred times from 0.313 to 31.3. Theoretical adsorption isotherms follow the trend of experimentally obtained data. Adsorption isotherms indicate that amount of proteins secreted from individual cells and subsequently captured on a clean glass slide surface increases monotonically with time. Our study directly validates that protein secretion rates can be quantified by the microengraving immunoassay. This will enable us to apply microengraving immunoassays to quantify secretion rates from 10⁴-10⁵ single cells in parallel, screen antigen-specific cells with the highest secretion rate for clonal expansion and quantitatively reveal cellular heterogeneity within a small cell sample.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicAdvanced Biosensing Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207