MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990719579 · doi:10.1002/elps.200700957

A microfluidic study of mechanisms in the electrophoresis of supercoiled DNA

2008· article· en· W1990719579 on OpenAlexaff
Dammika P. Manage, Iveta Imriskova‐Sosova, D. Moira Glerum, C. Backhouse

Bibliographic record

VenueElectrophoresis · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrofluidicsDNA supercoilDNAElectrophoresisNanotechnologyChemistryChromatographyBiophysicsBiologyMaterials scienceGeneticsDNA replication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, microfluidic chips were used to study the electrophoresis of supercoiled DNA (SC DNA) in agarose. This system allowed us to study the electrophoretic and trapping behaviours of SC DNA of various lengths, at various fields and separation distances. Near a critical electric field the DNA is trapped such that the concentration falls exponentially with distance. The trapping of such circular DNA has been explained in terms of the 'lobster trap' or 'impalement' model where shorter fibres become trapping sites at higher fields, leading to an ongoing (and gradual) increase in trapping with increasing field. By contrast, the present study suggests that under some circumstances the traps have a barrier such that only when the DNA has sufficient energy (at high enough fields) can it become trapped, leading to a sudden transition in behaviours at the critical field. We propose an 'activated impalement' mechanism of trapping in which only at sufficiently high fields is the SC DNA impaled and trapped for long times. The critical electric field appears to be inversely proportional to the length of the DNA molecule, suggesting that the force required to impale the SC DNA is constant.

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)
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 score0.085
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectrophoresisSame topicMicrofluidic and Capillary Electrophoresis ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207