Microfluidic Patterning of Miniaturized DNA Arrays on Plastic Substrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the patterning of DNA arrays on plastic surfaces using an elastomeric, two-dimensional microcapillary system (muCS). Fluidic structures were realized through hot-embossing lithography using Versaflex CL30. Like elastomers based on poly(dimethylsiloxane), this thermoplastic block copolymer is able to seal a surface in a reversible manner, making it possible to confine DNA probes with a level of control that is unparalleled using standard microspotting techniques. We focus on muCSs that support arrays comprising up to 2 x 48 spots, each being 45 mum in diameter. Substrates were fabricated from two hard thermoplastic materials, poly(methylmethacrylate) and a polycyclic olefin (e.g., Zeonor 1060R), which were both activated with 1-ethyl-3-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl]carbodiimide hydrochloride and N-hydroxysuccinimide to mediate covalent attachment of DNA molecules. The approach was exemplified by using 0.25-32 muM solutions of amino-modified oligonucleotides labeled with either Cy3 or Cy5 fluorescent dye in phosphate-buffered saline, allowing for a direct and sensitive characterization of the printed arrays. Solutions were incubated for durations of 1 to >48 h at 22, 30, and 40 degrees C to probe the conditions for obtaining uniform spots of high fluorescence intensity. The length (l) and depth (d) of microfluidic supply channels were both important with respect to depletion as well as evaporation of the solvent. While selective activation of the substrate proved helpful to limit unproductive loss of oligonucleotides along trajectories, incubation of solution in a humid environment was necessary to prevent uncontrolled drying of the liquid, keeping the immobilization process intact over extended periods of time. When combined, these strategies effectively promoted the formation of high-quality DNA arrays, making it possible to arrange multiple probes in parallel with a high degree of uniformity. Moreover, we show that resultant arrays are compatible with standard hybridization protocols, which allowed for reliable discrimination of individual strands when exposed to a specific ssDNA target molecule.
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 | 0.000 | 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".