MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068347875 · doi:10.1021/ac060533b

Electrochemical Detection of Single-Nucleotide Mismatches Using an Electrode Microarray

2006· article· en· W2068347875 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiaohong Li, Jeremy S. Lee, Heinz‐Bernhard Kraatz

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsChemistryElectrodeElectrochemistryMicroarrayNucleotideBiochemistryGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gold electrode arrays with electrode diameters of 10 mum were used for the detection of eight single-nucleotide mismatches in unlabeled and prehybridized DNA by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS). Because of the differences in the electrical properties of films of duplex DNA (normal duplex DNA in B-form) in the presence and absence of Zn(2+) at pH > or = 8.6, Randles equivalent circuits were employed to evaluate the EIS results. The difference in the charge-transfer resistance (DeltaR(CT)) between B-DNA (absence of Zn2+ at pH > or = 8.6) and M-DNA (presence of Zn2+ at pH > or = 8.6) allows unequivocal detection of all eight single-nucleotide mismatches within a 20-mer DNA sequence. After dehybridization/rehybridization with target DNA, DeltaR(CT) allows the discrimination of single-nucleotide mismatches with concentrations of the target strand as low as 10 fM. Although the presence of protein impurities (bovine serum albumin, 10 microg/mL) interferes with the detection of the target strand (1 pM detection limit), the presence of nontarget DNA (calf thymus DNA, 10(-8) M) does not interfere, and the detection limit for recognition of the target strand remains at 10 fM.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

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 head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations64
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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