MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114513515 · doi:10.1039/c2an35314h

Dissecting the effect of anions on Hg2+ detection using a FRET based DNA probe

2012· article· en· W2114513515 on OpenAlexafffund
Mehmet Murat Kiy, Ahmed B. Zaki, Arsalsan Beg Menhaj, Azadeh Samadi, Juewen Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsFörster resonance energy transferChemistryDNAAnalytical Chemistry (journal)NanotechnologyChromatographyFluorescenceBiochemistryMaterials sciencePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many biosensors have been developed to detect Hg(2+) using thymine-rich DNA. While sensor response to various cations is often studied to demonstrate selectivity, the effect of anions has been largely overlooked. Anions may compete with DNA for metal binding and thus produce a false negative result. Anions cannot be added alone; the cation part of a salt may cause DNA compaction and other effects, obscuring the role of anions. We find that the sensitivity of a FRET-based Hg(2+) probe is independent of Na(+) concentration. Therefore, by using various sodium salts, any change in sensitivity can be attributed solely to the effect of anions. Halide salts, sulfides, and amines are strong inhibitors; anions containing oxo or hydroxyl groups (e.g. nitrate, sulfate, phosphate, carbonate, acetate, and citrate) do not interfere with Hg(2+) detection even at 100 mM concentration. Mercury hydrolysis and its diffusion into polypropylene containers can also strongly affect the detection results. We conclude that thymine-rich DNA should be useful for Hg(2+) detection in many environmental water samples.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207