MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970214083 · doi:10.1039/c1an15414a

Electrochemical identification of artificial oligonucleotides related to bovine species. Potential for identification of species based on mismatches in the mitochondrial cytochrome C1 oxidase gene

2011· article· en· W1970214083 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohtashim H. Shamsi, Heinz‐Bernhard Kraatz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMitochondrial DNAScanning electrochemical microscopySubfamilyDNADielectric spectroscopyCytochrome c oxidaseChemistryOligonucleotideElectron transferCytochrome cElectrochemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)BiologyBiophysicsGeneEnzymeMitochondrionBiochemistryElectrodeChromatographyPhotochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our studies show that electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) and scanning electrochemical microscopy (SECM) of films of ds-DNA on gold allow us to distinguish between mitochondrial DNA fragments of the cytochrome c(1) oxidase (mt-Cox1) of three related species of the subfamily 'Bovinae' (Bos taurus, Bison bison, and Bison bonasus). In EIS, a perfectly matched DNA gives rise to a considerably larger charge transfer resistance R(ct) compared to mismatched pairings. Differences in charge transfer resistance, ΔR(ct), before and after the addition of Zn(2+) ions provide an additional tool for identification. In addition, all ds-DNA films were studied by SECM and their kinetic parameters were determined. Perfectly matched ds-DNAs are readily distinguished from mismatched duplexes by their lower rate constants. Our system can be used multiple times by dehybridization and rehybridization of capture strands up to the 250 pmole level.

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)0.001
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207