MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012255152 · doi:10.1093/nar/gkh826

DNA base pair resolution by single molecule force spectroscopy

2004· article· en· W2012255152 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForce spectroscopyStackingDNABase pairAtomic force microscopyMoleculeOligonucleotideBiophysicsChemical physicsHelix (gastropod)BiologyResolution (logic)Hydrogen bondCrystallographyNanotechnologyMaterials scienceChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The forces that hold complementary strands of DNA together in a double helix, and the role of base mismatches in these, are examined by single molecule force spectroscopy using an atomic force microscope (AFM). These forces are important when considering the binding of proteins to DNA, since these proteins often mechanically stretch the DNA during their action. In AFM measurement of forces, there is an inherent instrumental limitation that makes it difficult to compare results from different experimental runs. This is circumvented by using an oligonucleotide microarray, which allowed a direct comparison of the forces between perfectly matched short oligonucleotides and those containing a single or double mismatch. Through this greatly increased sensitivity, the force contribution of a single AT base pair was derived. The results indicate that the contribution to forces from the stacking interactions is more important than that from hydrogen bonding.

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 score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.306 · 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