MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040259240 · doi:10.1021/ac7024688

Unlabeled Hairpin-DNA Probe for the Detection of Single-Nucleotide Mismatches by Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy

2008· article· en· W2040259240 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Wang, Congjuan Li, Xiaohong Li, Yongfang Li, Heinz‐Bernhard Kraatz

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryDuplex (building)DNANucleotideHybridization probeDielectric spectroscopyOligonucleotideDNA–DNA hybridizationNucleic acid thermodynamicsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ElectrochemistryBiochemistryGeneElectrodeChromatographyBase sequence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An unlabeled hairpin-DNA probe was used for the detection of eight single-nucleotide mismatches by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS). Upon hybridization of the target strand with the hairpin DNA probe, the stem-loop structure is opened and forms a duplex DNA. Accordingly, the film thickness is increased, which causes differences in the electrical properties of the film before and after hybridization. Randles equivalent circuits were employed to evaluate the EIS result. The differences in the charge-transfer resistance DeltaR(CT) between hairpin DNA (before hybridization) and duplex DNA (after hybridization) shows the consequence of a large structural rearrangement from hairpin to duplex. If a single-nucleotide mismatch is present in the center of the duplex, the difference in charge-transfer resistance DeltaR(CT) between B-DNA in the absence and presence of Zn(2+) allows the unequivocal detection of all eight single-nucleotide mismatches. The detection limit was measured, and DeltaR(CT) allows the discrimination of a single-nucleotide mismatch with the concentration of the target strand as low as 10 pM.

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 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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations68
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207