MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052759269 · doi:10.1002/elps.200900154

DNA gel electrophoresis: The reptation model(s)

2009· review· en· W2052759269 on OpenAlexaff
Gary W. Slater

Bibliographic record

VenueElectrophoresis · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBacteriophages and microbial interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReptationPulsed-field gel electrophoresisGel electrophoresisCapillary electrophoresisDNAGel electrophoresis of nucleic acidsElectrophoresisFree-flow electrophoresisComputational biologyBiologyGeneticsGel electrophoresis of proteinsPolyacrylamide gel electrophoresisMolecular biologyChemistryGeneBiochemistryPolymerGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA gel electrophoresis has been the most important experimental tool to separate DNA fragments for several decades. The introduction of PFGE in the 1980s and capillary gel electrophoresis in the 1990s made it possible to study, map and sequence entire genomes. Explaining how very large DNA molecules move in a gel and why PFGE is needed to separate them has been an active field of research ever since the launch of the journal Electrophoresis. This article presents a personal and historical overview of the development of the theory of gel electrophoresis, focusing on the reptation model, the band broadening mechanisms, and finally the factors that limit the read length and the resolution of electrophoresis-based sequencing systems. I conclude with a short discussion of some of the questions that remain unanswered.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.009

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations41
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectrophoresisSame topicBacteriophages and microbial interactionsFrench-language works237,207