Evaluation of Surface Plasmon Resonance Relative to High Pressure Liquid Chromatography for the Determination of Paralytic Shellfish Toxins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A surface plasmon resonance (SPR) method, incorporating monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies, was compared to HPLC fluorescence for the determination of paralytic shellfish toxins (PSTs) in shellfish collected from different regions of Canada (n = 33) and Europe (n = 55). Cross-reactivity between saxitoxin (STX) and its structural analogues was determined for both monoclonal (GT-13A) and polyclonal (R895) antibodies. Method detection limits based on IC(10) values, using the SPR methodology (0.55-71.3 ng/mL), in particular for GT-13A, were somewhat higher than those determined using HPLC (0.16-1.29 ng/mL). SPR analyses generally resulted in higher PST levels relative to those obtained using HPLC, although neither antibody successfully responded to the N-1-hydroxylated analogues (e.g., neosaxitoxin). Five and 10 (R895 and GT-13A, respectively) of the 88 samples tested resulted in PST concentrations above the regulatory limit (80 microg/100 g shellfish tissue as STX equivalents), although HPLC responses indicated that these samples were within acceptable levels. Two and five samples were found to have PST concentrations below the regulatory limit using the GT-13A and R895, respectively, when HPLC results exceeded the limit. SPR may be applicable as a screening technique, although improved antibody response to the N-1-hydroxylated PSTs is required prior to this method being safely used for routine testing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".