Affinity Imaging of Red Blood Cells Using an Atomic Force Microscope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used an atomic force microscope (AFM) to produce an image of a mixed layer of group A and O red blood cells with a contrast based only on the measured strength of a specific receptor-ligand pair. The image was obtained by measuring and plotting for each image pixel the adhesion force between the mixed RBC layer and the AFM tip functionalized with Helix pomatia lectin. The high specificity of that lectin for the N -acetylgalactosamine-terminated glycolipids present in the membrane of group A RBCs enabled us to discriminate between the two cell populations and to produce an image based on affinity contrast. The rupture force of the adhesion events leading to the image formation were quantitatively analyzed and compared to rupture forces measured with the same AFM tip on N-acetylgalactosamine tethered to agarose beads. The mean rupture force was found to be 65 pN when measured on the group A RBCs and 35 pN on the agarose beads. These results show that the adhesion, mediated by only a few receptor-ligand pairs, produces sufficient contrast for the affinity image formation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".