MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065417035 · doi:10.1021/ac901445b

Affinity Sensing for Transgenes Detection in Antidoping Control

2009· article· en· W2065417035 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Simona Scarano, Maria Michela Spiriti, Genny Tigli, Patrizia Bogani, Marcello Buiatti, Maria Minunni

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversità degli Studi di FirenzeMinistero della SaluteWorld Anti-Doping Agency
KeywordsOligonucleotideChemistryTransgeneGenePlasmidDNAComputational biologyMolecular biologyBiosensorGreen fluorescent proteinGenetic enhancementBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sports authorities fear that a new form of doping called gene doping, based on the misuse of gene therapy, represents an emerging important problem and so far no methods are available for detecting it. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has included since 2003 for the first time gene doping methods in the "Prohibited List of Substances and Methods", thus detection of this new form of doping is challenging for analytical chemists. In this work, we apply affinity-based biosensors (ABBs), in particular DNA piezoelectric sensing, for detection of target DNA sequences selected as transgenosis markers. In this work, two sequences widely used in transgenosis experiments have been identified as markers: the enhanced green fluorescence protein (EGFP) gene and the promoter of Cytomegalovirus (CMV). The biosensors are characterized in their analytical performances using synthetic oligonucleotides and amplified DNA obtained from purified plasmid used as a template. Finally they have been applied to transgenic human cell cultures (human embryonic kidney HEK-EGFP), transformed with the same plasmid and carrying the target markers. This represents the closest human real matrix available for our transgenes.

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 score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207