MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A TWO DIMENSIONAL GEL ELECTROPHORESIS TECHNIQUE COMBINING A MICRO‐ AND A MINI‐GEL SYSTEM FOR PROTEOMIC ANALYSIS OF FUNGAL HEAT SHOCK PROTEINS

2003· article· en· W2060525519 on OpenAlexaff
Ilungo J. Xavier, George G. Khachatourians

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Rapid Methods & Automation in Microbiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsoelectric focusingSilver stainTwo-dimensional gel electrophoresisProteomeGel electrophoresisElectrophoresisHeat shock proteinChromatographyStainingDifference gel electrophoresisPulsed-field gel electrophoresisChemistryBiologyMolecular biologyProteomicsBiochemistryEnzymeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A two‐dimensional gel electrophoresis (2‐DGE) technique is described here that combines isoelectric focusing (IEF) based separation of proteins using the PhastGel IEF in the first dimension and the Criterion precast mini‐gels in the second dimension. The technique is rapid (2.5 to 3 h including silver staining), convenient, sensitive with high resolution and enables simultaneous analysis of up to 24 samples. This technique also eliminates any inconsistencies arising from gel to gel variation, either from electrophoresis running conditions or differential staining times, especially as in the case of silver stains. The rapidity and efficacy of this technique is demonstrated by the proteome‐based analysis of the induction, enhancement and repression of proteins in heat shocked Beauveria bassiana, ah entomopathogenic fungus.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Rapid Methods & Automation in MicrobiologySame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207