MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037038032 · doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000000354

Extraction versus <i>In Situ</i> Techniques for Measuring Surface‐Adsorbed Lysozyme

2014· article· en· W2037038032 on OpenAlexafffund
Brad Hall, Chau‐Minh Phan, Lakshman N. Subbaraman, Lyndon Jones, James A. Forrest

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLysozymeContact lensIn situAdsorptionChemistryLens (geology)Materials scienceOpticsBiochemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To compare two techniques for measuring the activity of lysozyme deposited onto hydrogel contact lens and to image the binding of Micrococcus lysodeikticus to contact lenses. METHODS: Using a previously described protein extraction technique and a recently developed in situ technique, we measured the time-dependent activity of adsorbed lysozyme on six different contact lens materials during the first minute and up to 1 week of interaction with the material surface. Total activity of extracted lysozyme, total in situ activity, and the activity of the outer surface layer of sorbed lysozyme were determined using the two different techniques. Micrococcal cellular interaction with surface-adsorbed lysozyme was imaged using confocal microscopy. RESULTS: The differences between total extracted activities, total in situ activities, and surface activities were both measurable and material specific. In most cases, total extracted activity is greater than total in situ activity, which, in turn, is greater than surface activity. After 1 week, etafilcon A had the highest extracted activity at 137 μg/lens, followed by omafilcon A, balafilcon A, comfilcon A, senofilcon A, and lotrafilcon B at 27.4, 2.85, 2.02, 0.46, and 0.27 μg/lens, respectively. Micrococcal cell adhesion was greatest on contact lenses with high contact angles, such as balafilcon A, omafilcon A, and senofilcon A and lowest on contact lenses with low contact angles, such as etafilcon A, comfilcon A, and lotrafilcon B. Subsequent removal/prevention of adhered micrococcal cells was greatest on balafilcon A, which had the highest surface activity, and lowest on lotrafilcon B, which had the lowest surface activity. CONCLUSIONS: This study has measured and made direct comparisons between two established techniques for measuring the activity of adsorbed lysozyme. The extraction technique determines the activity of underlying layers of lysozyme or lysozyme within the matrix of the material. Conversely, the in situ technique allows conclusions to be drawn about only the biologically relevant lysozyme including the activity of just the outer surface of adsorbed lysozyme.

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)0.002
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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207