MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011686219 · doi:10.1021/bp025789r

Reverse Micellar Extraction and Precipitation of Lysozyme Using Sodium Di(2-ethylhexyl) Sulfosuccinate

2003· article· en· W2011686219 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiotechnology Progress · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSurfactants and Colloidal Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLysozymeChemistryChromatographyAcetoneAqueous solutionExtraction (chemistry)PrecipitationMicelleAqueous two-phase systemSolventPulmonary surfactantSodiumPhase (matter)BiochemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sodium di(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate, referred to as Aerosol-OT or AOT, was used to remove lysozyme from an aqueous phase via reverse micellar extraction and precipitation method. For both methods, when the surfactant was in excess, a complete removal of lysozyme from the aqueous phase was obtained at the values of pH below the pI of lysozyme. However, for the reverse micellar method, a solubilization limit of lysozyme in the organic phase was observed, and a white precipitate was formed at the aqueous-organic interface. This observation suggested using AOT directly as a precipitating ligand. The lysozyme precipitated with AOT was fully recovered, with its original enzymatic activity, using acetone as a recovery solvent. A mechanism is suggested to explain the solubilization of lysozyme in an AOT reverse micellar system. It is shown that a direct precipitation method can be used with advantage instead of using the reverse micellar extraction method to recover lysozyme from an aqueous phase.

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 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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